Tim Thomson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .