Message-Id: <199705151943.PAA12434@delorie.com> Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 14:43:45 -0500 From: "Jonathan E. Brickman" Reply-To: "Jonathan E. Brickman" To: opendos AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: OpenDOS graphics drivers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk > 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.