home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: hyc@hanauma.jpl.nasa.gov
- Subject: Re: GEM/X
- Date: Fri, 21 Jan 94 10:24:20 PST
-
-
- What you wrote:
- > What about NeXT ? X uses by far the most CPU resources, and GEM the least,
- > so what about something in between .. like the NeXT GUI? It could be
- > simulated either by adding to GEM, or rewrite GEM to call NeXT-like objects
- .
-
- NeXTstep would he even worse than a simple X server on an ST or Falcon;
- Display PostScript is computationally expensive, and we don't have enough
- computrons to spread around. Have you seen how slow Ghostscript and
- Ultrascript (two PostScript emulators) are on a 68k? *shudder*
-
- Agreed, anything PostScript based would be a worse drain than even X...
-
- I wonder if a virtual desktop for MGR would be possible, and how "slow"
- it would be? MGR is a pretty minimal (ie, fast and not too memory hogging)
- graphical environment... Maybe someone who's actually been using it
- (is Howard Chu on this list?) has been doing some work at making it more
- attractive to users?
-
- I've had to give up using MGR to write stuff in MultiTOS on the Falcon. As
- such, I guess now I'm more interested in ideas to optimize GEM than to use
- alternate window systems.
-
- It's a pity Atari decided to put such a brain-dead MMU into the original
- ST. 4M isn't enough for all of this and a C compiler, let alone a C++
- compiler. :-(
-
- Well, maybe not for a GNU compiler, anyway... Lots of people got lots of
- useful work done on Sun 3/50s, 4 MB, 12.5 MHz 68020... But even so, a real MMU
- would be nice. A CPU that supported virtual machine operations would be nice.
- Like a 68030...
-
- Of course, you can still get 12 MHz 68010s from Motorola, and they ought to be
- able to operate at 16 MHz. Stick one of those in a 16 MHz accelerator board,
- and you may be able to get by a while longer...
-