Mail Archives: opendos/1997/05/15/15:43:23
> Have you ever *used* X?
I have. Extensively.
> That URL is just a chapter of the infamous "Unix Hater Handbook".
Yes. That book is very accurate in some areas.
> Now some facts:
> X11R4 is *ancient*. It's X11R6.3 now, so xclock should use more than 656K.
> The memory usage of running xclock on my system:
> Total memory used: 1028Kb
> It's a lot, but....
> Of those 1028Kb, 780Kb are shared with other apps (it's basically all of
> the athena widgets, plus libX11 and libXt, it's like counting GDI.EXE and
> USER.EXE as part of a windows program). So, xclock's memory usage is....
> 248Kb, not 656Kb.
248K is disgusting for something as simple as xclock. Leaner
clocks are better, yes. But the memory utilization of Unix/X
apps in many situations is worse than Windows 95.
That is very bad.
> And X *is* useful. And X has a free implementation
> that could be ported to DOS.
I don't think anyone here has said X is not useful. X is,
however, horribly badly constructed, takes a ridiculous
amount of resources to run, can eat a LAN's bandwidth
for breakfast, and spawns really buggy software via
its poor construction. Kind of like Windows 3.11, but
faster, with far less useful software available.
I can do one heck of a lot more with a workstation
running Windows 3.11 on a Pentium in 8 megs of
RAM than I can with a workstation running X-Windows
under any Unix on the same hardware.
Jonathan E. Brickman River City Computing, Inc. (913) 232-6663
http://www.cjnetworks.com/~rivercity brickman AT cjnetworks DOT com
It seems to me that men usually think more about carburetors, and women
think more about doors. I think the world needs really good carburetors...and
really good doors.
- Raw text -