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