On 02/23/2010 06:59 PM, der Mouse wrote: >> Not real sure that X would do a lot of good on a 4801 box.... > > I don't see why not. It was useful on Sun-3s, which were significantly > wimpier.
I got XFCE up and running on a Lifebook S-4572 a couple of weeks ago. The 4572 is comparable to the 4801 in terms of CPU and RAM. It started out swapping heavily just displaying the xdm, but I got it to the point where it allocated only about 160 megs for logging in. > Perhaps you're confusing X with insanely bloated "modern" "desktop > environment"s built atop X, like KDE and Gnome? (X is not a window > system; it's a framework for building window systems. It's possible to > build fairly lightweight window systems in X.) Well, well. That's X theory. X practice differs. Try to use a couple of modern scalable fonts across the network using an xlib application, and watch the network, CPU and RAM usage balloon. If you restrict yourself to fonts that provide only ascii or 8859-1, if you stick to one font sizes and avoid italics or boldness, then fonts aren't a problem. If you can keep latency low, then xlib is bearable. And so on. But X has its mistakes and they add up. Arnt _______________________________________________ Soekris-tech mailing list Soekris-tech@lists.soekris.com http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
