Xref: utzoo comp.windows.news:602 comp.windows.x:4216
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!eagle!icdoc!qmc-cs!liam
From: liam@cs.qmc.ac.uk (William Roberts)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: ``X kills networks'' and X vs. NeWS performance in general
Message-ID: <539@sequent.cs.qmc.ac.uk>
Date: 11 Jul 88 16:56:37 GMT
References: <23581@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <14318@hc.DSPO.GOV> <111@sunquest.UUCP>
Reply-To: liam@cs.qmc.ac.uk (William Roberts)
Organization: Computer Science Dept, Queen Mary College, University of London, UK.
Lines: 35
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

In article <111@sunquest.UUCP> whm@sunquest.UUCP (Bill Mitchell) writes:
>   a) Create a C array of endpoint coordinates for 100,000 lines and then
>      draw them.  x and y values for endpoint coordinates should be
>      selected using a uniform random distribution and scaled to
>      produce lines with a mean length of five inches.  Display the
>      lines in a 10x10 inch window.
>
>      Variations:
>      After all the lines after been drawn, erase them in reverse order.
>
>      Erase each line after it is drawn.
>
>      Draw rectangles using the endpoints as cornerpoints.
>
>      Generate the endpoints on the server, if you can.

OK, I'll try it if I can find the time - the only snags are:

        NeWS can't selectively erase lines
        X can't generate random numbers in the server

Suggested experimental parameters:

        Local vs remote clients
        backing store/no backing store
        Thick lines/fast lines

Would it matter if I used the standard UNIX random number
generator with user-supplied seed value (so you can reproduce
the same sets of endpoints) and ignored the normalisation?
-- 

William Roberts         ARPA: liam@cs.qmc.ac.uk  (gw: cs.ucl.edu)
Queen Mary College      UUCP: liam@qmc-cs.UUCP
LONDON, UK              Tel:  01-975 5250