glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) (02/14/91)
I have a Sun 3/50 with the stardard 4Meg of memory. I've been thinking of upgrading its memory so that I can efficiently run OpenWindows. Is it worth it? I've heard from some people that it's not even worth trying to run OpenWindows on a Sun 3/50. Does anyone out there run OpenWindows on such a machine, and what kind of performance do you get? Thanks in advance, Glenn -- Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602
karl@quercus.gsfc.nasa.gov (Karl Anderson) (02/14/91)
In article <1991Feb13.165804.27453@rigel.econ.uga.edu>, glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) writes: |> |> I have a Sun 3/50 with the stardard 4Meg of memory. I've been thinking of |> upgrading its memory so that I can efficiently run OpenWindows. Is it worth |> it? I've heard from some people that it's not even worth trying to run |> OpenWindows on a Sun 3/50. Does anyone out there run OpenWindows on |> such a machine, and what kind of performance do you get? |> We have two 3/50s with 8 Mb of RAM. Their owners were using SunView, but have found OW to be more functional, and the performance is satisfactory enough that both have made OW their default environments. -- Karl A. Anderson | Internet: karl@forest.gsfc.nasa.gov NASA/GSFC code 923 (STX) | voice: (301) 286-3815 Greenbelt, MD 20771 | #include "std_disclaimer"
glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu (Glenn F. Leavell) (02/14/91)
I recently wrote the following here in comp.window.open-look: >I have a Sun 3/50 with the standard 4Meg of memory. I've been thinking of >upgrading its memory so that I can efficiently run OpenWindows. Is it worth >it? I've heard from some people that it's not even worth trying to run >OpenWindows on a Sun 3/50. Does anyone out there run OpenWindows on >such a machine, and what kind of performance do you get? Thanks for the responses. The consensus seems to be that upgrading from 4Meg to 8 or 12Meg will allow Open Windows 2 to run reasonably well. However, several people warned that the 3/50 should be used exclusively for the OW, and that most real work (applications, etc.) should be done on remote machines. There were several interesting points, which I'll share: Rich Kaul wrote: >It's quite slow, even on an 8Mbyte 3/50 with X11ONLY defined -- I >can't image what it's like for you with 4Mbytes. And the swapping >traffic on your server is about 4 times what it is with the standard >MIT X11R4. We dumped OW and went with the MIT stuff for our 3/50s >(and even on our SLCs since the server really didn't need the extra >swapping traffic). Kerry Alt wrote: >xterms are MUCH faster than cmd-tools, so always run them instead. >In any event, I feel that all sun 3's NEED at least 8mb and a math >coprocessor (mc8881, I think). Kari Syst wrote that a friend of his was successfully running OW on an 8Meg 3/50, but added: >However, when he saw me plaing with OW on SS1, he became jealous. Marcel Bernards wrote that he experiences reasonable speed with OW2 on an 8 or 12Meg 3/50, but warned: >However running devguide ( OW userinterface builder from Sun ) >is not as pleasant as it should be. Thanks again to the following people who responded: Rich Kaul (kaul@icarus.eng.ohio-state.edu) Kelvin Don Nilsen (kelvin@kickapoo.cs.iastate.edu) Kerry Alt (kalt@NMSU.Edu) Kari Syst (ks@tut.fi) Marcel Bernards (bernards%ecn.nl@uga.cc.uga.edu) -- Glenn F. Leavell Systems Administrator glenn@rigel.econ.uga.edu 404-542-3488 University of Georgia Economics Department. 147 Brooks Hall. Athens, GA 30602