Amiga 3000UX, X, OpenLook, Motif, Color, A2410, Etc. (somewhat long)

[David S. Herron]

In article <392 at tcr.UUCP> xenon at tcr.UUCP (Chris Hanson) writes:
>    3) Much the same question applies to X11R4. I have heard it stated
>unofficially on the net that the version 2.0 of Amiga Unix will include X11
>Release 4. Is this true? (Is anyone listening to me? ;)

>From "Amiga Unix Tech Notes" volume 1 number 1:

	X11R4, with your choice of window managers.

(Gee.. does that mean they know I want to use `gwm' & will bundle
that with v2.0 Just For Meee!?!?) 


>    4) Carrying on the Unix version 2.0 thread, it has also been said that
>version 2.0 will allow the user to rebuild the kernal, like any other self-
>respecting Unix package. Is this reasonably close to being fact?

>From the Tech notes:

	An expanded and user selectable installation and configuration program.

Might or might not be what you suggest.

>    6) We're running Unix on a 4 fast/2 chip A3000/25 with 100 meg drive and
>320 meg external. I know Unix is _expected_ to be a real memory-pig, but by
>the time the system comes up and allows me to login to the ksh, I am already
>paging about 2 megabytes. Is this normal?

The generic advice is: Unix + X11 requres 8 Megs.  2 megs of swapping
sounds reasonable then.  Especially since people (Dave Haynie I think)
have said that on an Amiga Unix > 1 meg of chip memory is a waste
since it only uses the 1, and that it is unavailable to the OS.

>    7) I have also run a rough benchmarking program (that supposably computed
>drystones per second) on the 3000UX/25, an 030 NeXT, and a DTK 80386/25
>running ESIX SysV R3.2.2. The NeXT averaged about 9000, the 386 about 12000,
>and the 3000 got about 3200. For comparison, the 3200 reading was from code
>compiled with the AT&T cc compiler. Compiling the same source with the GNU
>gcc compiler netted us a figure of over 6500. Much better ...


gcc is a better compiler than AT&T's.  gcc is PARTICULARLY good with 68000
family processors.

>From the Tech notes:

	new GCC-compiled kernel and utilities.

Since gcc give twice the performance of AT&T's compiler (as you mentioned
above) this should make the machine MUCH faster.  To boot, X11R4 is much
much much faster than R3.

Remember, compiler differences are very important when comparing Dhrystones.

-- 
<- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david at twg.com>
<- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david at ms.uky.edu>
<-
<- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future