Re: Cygwin X11 Server slow performance
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 11:19:42 -0500
- From: Paul Sheer <paulsheer@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Cygwin X11 Server slow performance
20 years ago Linux cult members were using the same
Nothing has changed.
I don't use Emacs. I only gave it as an easily-testable example.
Try: apt-get install xemacs ; export DISPLAY=windows.mylan:0.0 ;
Professionally, I have been a C++ developer for 20 years, and I am
also a published author:
I don't need to do ANY analysis or tests to see that the Cygwin and
Mingw X Servers have abhorrent latency problems: you press a key and
you wait 0.25 seconds for the page to render. That's like the speed
of a page render over 9600 baud terminal. X Servers were NEVER this
slow even in the 1990s.
Why would I sit and do a mathematical analysis, when I can simply
uninstall it and install something that actually works???
Why would I waist my time trying to fix the problem, when cygwin
mailing list respondents refuse to admit the problem exists???
You are like a Flat-Earther the way you argue.
On 6/5/18, L A Walsh <cygwin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul Sheer wrote:
>>> Maybe you aren't familiar with 'X'. X is just a graphical
>>> transport. It doesn't have menus unless some other program puts them
>>> Try 'X' on linux -- running it from startX from a console and see
>>> how easy it is to use.
>> NetSarang commercial X server has configuration menus to set keyboard
>> mappings, cut-paste behavior, and various other settings in a user
>> friendly manner. It has orders of magnitude faster performance in a
>> side-by-side comparison using XEmacs Motif as a test application
>> displayed remotely over a 1GB LAN.
> That's fine, but how much does NetSarang cost for 10-15 years
> of commercial support & upgrades?
> I use Gvim over a Gtk interface. The fact that you are
> comfortable with a 20 yr-old graphical interface, that was only
> reasonably supported by commercial Unix vendors puts you in a
> different class of users -- which was why I suggested an Apple
> based OS in the first place.
>> But that fact that you are using the reason "X is just a graphical
>> transport" as an excuse makes me realize it is impossible to have a
>> conversation with you.
> From my perspective, that's what it is, not too many
> programs are built on the Xlib et al. widget set. I tune my programs
> and I/O more for file I/O and know my toolsets enough to know that
> they don't do with small packets, but had file I/O tuned at
> 125megaB (mega=10**6) writes and 119megaB reads over a 1GB LAN
> and now get 600+MB(M=2**20) reads and 275+ writes over a 8Gb LAN
> (10 in name, but lose 20% to bus speed). My speeds now, in file
> I/O and in gvim are limited by CPU speed as Gvim does near full
> syntax parsing for error and color display.
> Realize though, that the fact that you prefer a commercial
> emacs version to a free X11+gtk Gvim sorta puts you more in a
> commercial apple class which is another reason I pointed at
> Apple based computers. Also, even the fact that you prefer emacs
> + motif...makes it less likely you'll be happy with something
> that requires more work on the part of the user to tune for the
> OS + hardware; again=> apple.
> I hope you appreciate my input, it certainly wasn't from a fanboy
> of any of the OS's, point of view, but you've indicated you want
> Cadillac features and support. I suggest and hope you find what
> you are looking for.
> (M=2**30) writes with
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple