Re: X-win more effiecient than Win95?
Tim Thomson <tim.thomson@usa.net> writes:
> A friend of mine asked me if X-win was more efficient than Win95 on the
> same system?
Depends on how you define "efficient".
I usually use different computers in my department, and the first thing I do
is to install a X-Server for Win32, so I can use all the fine programms on
my debian box.
Efficent in terms of "you can use better software": YES
Usually the X-Server is slower in terms of drawing the actual windows. But
this is a problem of the X-Server. I think a faster implementation could be
possible.
Efficent in terms of "drawing speed": most likely NO
Win95 and the various Linux windowmanager have a different look and feel. I
have customised my wm to my needs and I think it is far better then the
Win95 GUI.
Efficent in terms of "usability": I think YES
Anyone who works with Win95 knows that a application can hang this
system. If you use a X-Server, all programms run on your remote Linux
machine. No programm can hang your computer (except a bug in the X-Server).
Efficent in terms of "stability": a big YES
There are even more aspects, but you get the point.
> I said it would probably be better for somethings, and maybe slower than
> others, but I wasn't sure - so I though to ask you people.
>
> Anyone done any benchmarks???
>
So you refer to drawing speed? For a answer see above.
But if you mean a comparison in drawingspeed on the same hardware, one
computer running win95 and the other Linux with XFree or AccelX or MetroX, I
don't have the answer and I don't know any benchmarks. I think this also
depends on the graphiccard and how well it is supported by the Linux X-Server.
Ciao,
Martin
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-user-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: