second thoughts on buying a 3000UX

[Doug Dyer]

scotte at applix.com (Scott Evernden) writes:

>In article <5PR9W6D at xds13.ferranti.com> peter at ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>In article <1135 at applix.com> scotte at applix.UUCP (Scott Evernden) writes:
>>> In the end, I decided to brew myself a 486/33 box. 
>>

>>but unless the video RAM is on the motherboard and not going through the
>>slow slow slow IBM-PC bus the overall system is likely to be slower for
>>X work. Have you compared the X speed of the two boxes?

>I dunno.  8 plane windows move around fast enough.  How quickly can
>the 3000 blitter process 8 plane images?   :-)

I thought amiga unix didn't use the blitter, but CPU for graphics.

>>If anything, X is the big reason to go with the 3000 rather than a [34]86
>>box.

>If I spent all day just running X programs then the A3000 might make more
>sense.  But, I spend all day compiling code.  I need max. disk and cpu
>speed.  90% of the time graphics thruput contributes zip to my productivity.
>The rest of the time, I'm maybe moving windows, which the 486 can do faster
>on a 12MHz bus than the Amiga blitter on it's slow slow slow 7.14 MHz bus.

The blitter isn't used under UNIX (see below).  The CPU is.  He he he

-----------------------
>From daveh at cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com Mon Feb 25 19:17:13 1991
...
run for the money.  Under UNIX, they use the 68030 alone for graphics
manipulation.  They claim it's faster than the blitter for X windows, and it
probably is, since X was designed with CPU access in mind.  However, they 
originally chose to use the CPU because the old AMIX window manager claimed
exclusive of the Amiga-specific features of the system, and therefore X could
not use it.  That window manager is no longer a part of the system, but that
was the original reason they went for CPU-only on the Amiga-resident UNIX X.

-Dave Haynie

-- 
2B|!(2B) => ?               Can a perfect being create an object                
ddyer at hubcap.clemson.edu        Heavier than it can lift?