Fun thing: Apparently if you buy a Raspberry Pi, it now comes with a 
free copy of Mathematica.

Not some crippled version. The entire thing. For free.

(Recall that to *buy* Mathematica is currently over £8,000.)

Well, I say "not crippled"... it'll only run on a Raspberry Pi. Which is 
fine for solving the occasional quadratic equation, but you can't do 
advanced aerospace engineering with it. So I guess it's not like they're 
losing any sales here.

Also: Apparently the Raspberry Pi is _more powerful_ than the hardware 
that Mathematica was originally released for. (Apple Mac? Apple II??)

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Fun thing: Apparently if you buy a Raspberry Pi, it now comes with a 
> free copy of Mathematica.

> Not some crippled version. The entire thing. For free.

> (Recall that to *buy* Mathematica is currently over ?8,000.)

I really have to wonder how they can afford doing that (I'm assuming
this whole thing is completely legal.) Maybe they got some kind of
odd deal with Wolfram Research.

It's just a bit odd, because there are free math software out there
as well. Sure, most of them is not even nearly as good as Mathematica,
but still...

(By the way, personally I really like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PARI/GP
which is a nice piece of math software usable on the command line.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 18:23:14 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Fun thing: Apparently if you buy a Raspberry Pi, it now comes with a
> free copy of Mathematica.
> 
> Not some crippled version. The entire thing. For free.

Yep.  Which reminds me, I need to check it out. :)

> (Recall that to *buy* Mathematica is currently over £8,000.)
> 
> Well, I say "not crippled"... it'll only run on a Raspberry Pi. Which is
> fine for solving the occasional quadratic equation, but you can't do
> advanced aerospace engineering with it. So I guess it's not like they're
> losing any sales here.
> 
> Also: Apparently the Raspberry Pi is _more powerful_ than the hardware
> that Mathematica was originally released for. (Apple Mac? Apple II??)

Not surprising, it's been around for a while.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 13:40:00 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Fun thing: Apparently if you buy a Raspberry Pi, it now comes with a
>> free copy of Mathematica.
> 
>> Not some crippled version. The entire thing. For free.
> 
>> (Recall that to *buy* Mathematica is currently over ?8,000.)
> 
> I really have to wonder how they can afford doing that (I'm assuming
> this whole thing is completely legal.) Maybe they got some kind of odd
> deal with Wolfram Research.

Yes, it is exactly that - legit, legal, and direct from Wolfram.

Jim

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

On 24/01/2014 06:40 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> Fun thing: Apparently if you buy a Raspberry Pi, it now comes with a
>> free copy of Mathematica.
>
>> Not some crippled version. The entire thing. For free.
>
>> (Recall that to *buy* Mathematica is currently over ?8,000.)
>
> I really have to wonder how they can afford doing that (I'm assuming
> this whole thing is completely legal.) Maybe they got some kind of
> odd deal with Wolfram Research.

It was Mr Wolfram's idea. He thought given that the Pi is geared towards 
education, it would be a cool idea to get all the kids used to using 
*his* premium-grade math package, so that when they grow up big and 
strong, they'll beg their employers to buy a full-price copy.

Kind of like how MS lets you have a free 30-day trial of Visual Studio, 
even though the thing actually costs thousands of pounds.

> It's just a bit odd, because there are free math software out there
> as well. Sure, most of them is not even nearly as good as Mathematica,
> but still...

I've never seen anything else that does what Mathematica does which 
isn't also klunky, kludgy and generally useless. (Then again, I haven't 
looked very extensively.)

Having said that, the GUI for Mathematica is real ugly. I suppose you 
have to expect that from such ancient software. But Jesus, put some 
anti-alias on that thing!!

The thing is, the symbolic computation engine in Mathematica can 
probably be implemented in a day or two of coding in just about any 
programming language by a half-competent person. What you *can't* easily 
duplicate is the man-decades of R&D that Wolfram Research has put into 
the libraries you get with Mathematica. I have no idea what the hell a 
generised hypergeometric function even *is* - but I can promise you 
Mathematica has a function for it...

It's easy to write a program that can do trivial algebra rearrangements. 
(I did it myself, when I was 17, using Borland Turbo Pascal.) Getting it 
to actually work right for _all_ simple expressions, though... that's 
really tricky. Getting it to be 100% correct all the time, in the face 
of possible division by zero, different number fields (complex vs real), 
taking into account the branch cuts of various functions... All of this 
is way more tricky than it initially appears.

Post a reply to this message

>> Fun thing: Apparently if you buy a Raspberry Pi, it now comes with a
>> free copy of Mathematica.
>>
>> Not some crippled version. The entire thing. For free.
>
> Yep.  Which reminds me, I need to check it out. :)

Alternatively, just install Raspbian on a PC emulator. ;-)

>> Also: Apparently the Raspberry Pi is _more powerful_ than the hardware
>> that Mathematica was originally released for. (Apple Mac? Apple II??)
>
> Not surprising, it's been around for a while.

Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but 
the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".

Post a reply to this message

Am 24.01.2014 19:40, schrieb Warp:
> Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Fun thing: Apparently if you buy a Raspberry Pi, it now comes with a
>> free copy of Mathematica.
>
>> Not some crippled version. The entire thing. For free.
>
>> (Recall that to *buy* Mathematica is currently over ?8,000.)
>
> I really have to wonder how they can afford doing that (I'm assuming
> this whole thing is completely legal.) Maybe they got some kind of
> odd deal with Wolfram Research.

That.

(It's not /exactly/ news; I had already posted about it recently.)

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:12:31 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Fun thing: Apparently if you buy a Raspberry Pi, it now comes with a
>>> free copy of Mathematica.
>>>
>>> Not some crippled version. The entire thing. For free.
>>
>> Yep.  Which reminds me, I need to check it out. :)
> 
> Alternatively, just install Raspbian on a PC emulator. ;-)

I wonder how the performance would compare. :)

>>> Also: Apparently the Raspberry Pi is _more powerful_ than the hardware
>>> that Mathematica was originally released for. (Apple Mac? Apple II??)
>>
>> Not surprising, it's been around for a while.
> 
> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".

Not surprising, given the memory constraints on the pi.  Running openELEC 
on one here, 512 MB of RAM, looks like about half is used in normal 
circumstances.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

>> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
>> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".
>
> Not surprising, given the memory constraints on the pi.  Running openELEC
> on one here, 512 MB of RAM, looks like about half is used in normal
> circumstances.

Given that Mathematica is presumably all about compute-power, I'd be 
surprised if memory even came into the equation.

Also: It wasn't long ago that 512 MB of RAM was a luxury that only the 
very rich could afford. I would call that "contained".

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 22:02:18 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

>>> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi,
>>> but the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original
>>> Mac".
>>
>> Not surprising, given the memory constraints on the pi.  Running
>> openELEC on one here, 512 MB of RAM, looks like about half is used in
>> normal circumstances.
> 
> Given that Mathematica is presumably all about compute-power, I'd be
> surprised if memory even came into the equation.

Well, one might assume the graphing functions are going to be more about 
memory than about compute power.

> Also: It wasn't long ago that 512 MB of RAM was a luxury that only the
> very rich could afford. I would call that "contained".

Maybe 10 years ago.  It's amazing what progress brings, isn't it?  It 
wasn't that long ago (in geologic time) that rocks were the pinnacle of 
technological advancement, too.

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Am 25.01.2014 23:02, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
>>> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".
>>
>> Not surprising, given the memory constraints on the pi.  Running openELEC
>> on one here, 512 MB of RAM, looks like about half is used in normal
>> circumstances.
>
> Given that Mathematica is presumably all about compute-power, I'd be
> surprised if memory even came into the equation.

Surprise! :-P

Post a reply to this message

> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".

I got fed up with trying to run a music player on my pi (xbmc) under 
linux, it was stupidly sluggish just navigating menus or responding to 
key presses, searching the library was a total joke. So I spent a few 
days writing my own one in interpreted *BASIC* (with just the core 
search function implemented in assembler for speed) under RiscOS. Now as 
soon as you type the next character in your search term the results are 
displayed instantly, or navigating the folder structure is pretty much 
instantaneous. I can only conclude that the Linux APIs for doing 
graphics and file IO are bloated and slow for whatever reason.

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2014 10:51 AM, scott wrote:
>> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
>> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".
>
> I got fed up with trying to run a music player on my pi (xbmc) under
> linux, it was stupidly sluggish just navigating menus or responding to
> key presses, searching the library was a total joke. So I spent a few
> days writing my own one in interpreted *BASIC* (with just the core
> search function implemented in assembler for speed) under RiscOS. Now as
> soon as you type the next character in your search term the results are
> displayed instantly, or navigating the folder structure is pretty much
> instantaneous. I can only conclude that the Linux APIs for doing
> graphics and file IO are bloated and slow for whatever reason.

I know I ran Linux (Debian Potato) on my Amiga 1200, and it was slow to 
the point of being laughable. Meanwhile, the native OS was trippy fast - 
faster than some of today's modern PCs, 20 years later. Then again, I 
suspect that X11 doesn't know how to do custom trickery with the Blitter 
chip...

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I know I ran Linux (Debian Potato) on my Amiga 1200, and it was slow to 
> the point of being laughable. Meanwhile, the native OS was trippy fast - 
> faster than some of today's modern PCs, 20 years later. Then again, I 
> suspect that X11 doesn't know how to do custom trickery with the Blitter 
> chip...

Perhaps we could compare Linux to AmigaOS running on a PC at
1920x1080 32bpp.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-01-28 15:54, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 28/01/2014 10:51 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Apparently the command-line version zips along quite nicely on a Pi, but
>>> the GUI is "a little sluggish - but still faster than the original Mac".
>>
>> I got fed up with trying to run a music player on my pi (xbmc) under
>> linux, it was stupidly sluggish just navigating menus or responding to
>> key presses, searching the library was a total joke. So I spent a few
>> days writing my own one in interpreted *BASIC* (with just the core
>> search function implemented in assembler for speed) under RiscOS. Now as
>> soon as you type the next character in your search term the results are
>> displayed instantly, or navigating the folder structure is pretty much
>> instantaneous. I can only conclude that the Linux APIs for doing
>> graphics and file IO are bloated and slow for whatever reason.
>
> I know I ran Linux (Debian Potato) on my Amiga 1200, and it was slow to
> the point of being laughable. Meanwhile, the native OS was trippy fast -
> faster than some of today's modern PCs, 20 years later. Then again, I
> suspect that X11 doesn't know how to do custom trickery with the Blitter
> chip...

We've been through this before.  You are comparing the performances of a 
go-kart around a tire-track, with that of a tractor-trailer rig around 
the same track, and wondering why a lawnmower engine can outrun a 1300HP 
supercharged diesel.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/14 22:24, Francois Labreque wrote:
> 
> We've been through this before.  You are comparing the performances of a
> go-kart around a tire-track, with that of a tractor-trailer rig around
> the same track, and wondering why a lawnmower engine can outrun a 1300HP
> supercharged diesel.
> 

I love that image :-)

John
-- 
Protect the Earth
It was not given to you by your parents
You hold it in trust for your children

Post a reply to this message

On 28/01/2014 09:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>> I know I ran Linux (Debian Potato) on my Amiga 1200, and it was slow to
>> the point of being laughable. Meanwhile, the native OS was trippy fast -
>> faster than some of today's modern PCs, 20 years later. Then again, I
>> suspect that X11 doesn't know how to do custom trickery with the Blitter
>> chip...
>
> Perhaps we could compare Linux to AmigaOS running on a PC at
> 1920x1080 32bpp.

I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a 
reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with, 
after all...

Comparing AmigaOS to Linux running on a PC that's 20 years newer ought 
to be an unfair comparison. (Which is why it's surprising that AmigaOS 
doesn't look laughably underpowered.)

Post a reply to this message

>> I know I ran Linux (Debian Potato) on my Amiga 1200, and it was slow to
>> the point of being laughable. Meanwhile, the native OS was trippy fast -
>> faster than some of today's modern PCs, 20 years later. Then again, I
>> suspect that X11 doesn't know how to do custom trickery with the Blitter
>> chip...
>
> Perhaps we could compare Linux to AmigaOS running on a PC at
> 1920x1080 32bpp.

FWIW my pi music player runs in 1920x1080x32bpp very nicely. I put it 
down to Linux trying to do far too much stuff in the background that is 
unnecessary for a simple music player on a pi. But still, it's 
s..l..o..w which makes the pi look bad, when really it's just that Linux 
is far too bloated to run on it. Even the web browser in raspian is 
sluggish even on very simple pages, whereas the RiscOS one zips along 
very smoothly on exactly the same hardware and screen resolution.

I guess the guys who made raspbmc are attacking the problem by starting 
with a complex OS and application designed for a modern desktop PC and 
trimming it down, whereas I've started with a much simpler OS and 
building up an application from scratch. I think they're doing it the 
wrong way.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-01-29 03:30, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 28/01/2014 09:52 PM, Warp wrote:
>> Orchid Win7 v1<voi### [at] devnull>  wrote:
>>> I know I ran Linux (Debian Potato) on my Amiga 1200, and it was slow to
>>> the point of being laughable. Meanwhile, the native OS was trippy fast -
>>> faster than some of today's modern PCs, 20 years later. Then again, I
>>> suspect that X11 doesn't know how to do custom trickery with the Blitter
>>> chip...
>>
>> Perhaps we could compare Linux to AmigaOS running on a PC at
>> 1920x1080 32bpp.
>
> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a
> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with,
> after all...

But they don't have the same capabilities and features.  X11 is built 
around networking and serving multiple users.  So it's a flawed 
comparison to compare a GUI that is built around doing direct hardware 
calls to a specific chip set versus an application that is built around 
filing forms in triplicate (with the yellow going to finance and the 
pink to HR) asking for permission to invalidate a rectangle, and then 
upon receiving confirmation that it was cleared to do so, send further 
documents proposing what it intends to do with that section on the 
screen, requesting the hiring of draftsmen to draw lines, painters to 
paint sections of the rectangle, etc...

AmigaOS = breaking into an abandoned house and squatting it.
X11 = Andy dealing with the bank to buy a house.

That's why the comparison is unfair, regardless of the hardware you run 
it on.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a 
> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with, 
> after all...

Except that Linux was not designed to run efficiently on an Amiga any
more than AmigaOS was designed to run efficiently on a modern PC.

You mentioned that AmigaOS takes advantage of the Amiga's display hardware
for faster graphical operation. So does Linux on a modern PC.

> Comparing AmigaOS to Linux running on a PC that's 20 years newer ought 
> to be an unfair comparison.

It's not a question of age. It's a question of which hardware it was
designed to run on.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> FWIW my pi music player runs in 1920x1080x32bpp very nicely. I put it 
> down to Linux trying to do far too much stuff in the background that is 
> unnecessary for a simple music player on a pi.

Drawing efficiently at those resolutions requires hardware support,
which means that the OS requires optimized graphic drivers for the
particular hardware.

If one OS is drawing fast and another isn't, that tells me that there
is no proper graphics driver for the latter. (Just try disabling or
uninstalling the graphics drivers on a typical Linux PC and see how
amazingly sluggish it becomes.) I don't think Linux does anything
particularly heavy otherwise.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> FWIW my pi music player runs in 1920x1080x32bpp very nicely. I put it
>> down to Linux trying to do far too much stuff in the background that is
>> unnecessary for a simple music player on a pi.
>
> Drawing efficiently at those resolutions requires hardware support,
> which means that the OS requires optimized graphic drivers for the
> particular hardware.
>
> If one OS is drawing fast and another isn't, that tells me that there
> is no proper graphics driver for the latter.

The actual situation is the other way around. Under raspbian you have 
access to the GPU to do all sorts of accelerated things, which is how 
xbmc it manages to play back 1080p video smoothly and render 3D 
visualisations for the music. Under RiscOS you don't have access to 
this, you only have a framebuffer to read and write bytes to using the 
CPU. The developers only just added beta support for having two frame 
buffers and being able to swap between the two.

The reason the GUI is so sluggish on raspbian must be due to some other 
reason. Perhaps it's using too much RAM and using a swap file instead, 
something RiscOS definitely can't do.

Post a reply to this message

>> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a
>> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with,
>> after all...
>
> But they don't have the same capabilities and features. X11 is built
> around networking and serving multiple users. So it's a flawed
> comparison to compare a GUI that is built around doing direct hardware
> calls to a specific chip set versus an application that is built around
> filing forms in triplicate (with the yellow going to finance and the
> pink to HR) asking for permission to invalidate a rectangle, and then
> upon receiving confirmation that it was cleared to do so, send further
> documents proposing what it intends to do with that section on the
> screen, requesting the hiring of draftsmen to draw lines, painters to
> paint sections of the rectangle, etc...

Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the 
display on a different machine to the one where the program is?

I realise that X11 *can* do this (hypothetically), but does anybody ever 
use it? From what I've seen, everybody actually uses VNC instead.

Post a reply to this message

>> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a
>> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with,
>> after all...
>
> Except that Linux was not designed to run efficiently on an Amiga any
> more than AmigaOS was designed to run efficiently on a modern PC.
>
> You mentioned that AmigaOS takes advantage of the Amiga's display hardware
> for faster graphical operation. So does Linux on a modern PC.

My understanding is that X uses a device driver that is specific to the 
display hardware it's trying to run on. I'm not sure why you couldn't 
write such a driver that specifically targets the Amiga's video hardware.

(Or rather, someone *must* have done that to get X to work at all. What 
I mean is, write a driver that takes advantage of the available hardware 
acceleration...)

Post a reply to this message

Le 29/01/2014 22:32, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :

> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?

Yes. personally since 1990.

> 
> I realise that X11 *can* do this (hypothetically), but does anybody ever
> use it? From what I've seen, everybody actually uses VNC instead.

VNC is just bullshit when compared to X11. The killer of bandwidth is
the lovely decorations & curves. X11 is damn effective to handle the
mouse and rectangular area/basic widget such as radio box. Canva (free
drawing area) is slow.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 21:32:34 +0000, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?
> 
> I realise that X11 *can* do this (hypothetically), but does anybody ever
> use it? From what I've seen, everybody actually uses VNC instead.

Yes, I use it fairly regularly here at home.  For example, ssh'ing to 
another local machine and running an application remotely.  In fact, I 
did it just last night, running YaST's QT interface remotely to update a 
firewall config.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-01-29 16:32, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>>> I think comparing Linux to AmigaOS running on the exact same device is a
>>> reasonable comparison. They both have the same hardware to play with,
>>> after all...
>>
>> But they don't have the same capabilities and features. X11 is built
>> around networking and serving multiple users. So it's a flawed
>> comparison to compare a GUI that is built around doing direct hardware
>> calls to a specific chip set versus an application that is built around
>> filing forms in triplicate (with the yellow going to finance and the
>> pink to HR) asking for permission to invalidate a rectangle, and then
>> upon receiving confirmation that it was cleared to do so, send further
>> documents proposing what it intends to do with that section on the
>> screen, requesting the hiring of draftsmen to draw lines, painters to
>> paint sections of the rectangle, etc...
>
> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?

Me, and the rest of my team, every day for 10 of the last 15 years.

-- 
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/*    flabreque    */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/*        @        */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/*   gmail.com     */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }

Post a reply to this message

Am 29.01.2014 22:32, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?

Yes. Me, for instance.

Post a reply to this message

> Question: Has anybody ever, in the history of X11, actually run the
> display on a different machine to the one where the program is?
>
> I realise that X11 *can* do this (hypothetically), but does anybody ever
> use it? From what I've seen, everybody actually uses VNC instead.

The whole computer system at our engineering department at university 
did this. One central server. Fun times when an entire class was doing 
the finite element modelling course. And the absolutely atrocious GUI on 
most applications we used put most people off Unix/Linux for life.

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> My understanding is that X uses a device driver that is specific to the 
> display hardware it's trying to run on. I'm not sure why you couldn't 
> write such a driver that specifically targets the Amiga's video hardware.

Someone probably could, but a different question is whether someone has.

(Also, while I know nothing about the X11 architecture, it's possible
that even with an optimized driver it might not be able to take full
advantage of a very unique display hardware, which the one in the Amiga
might be, because X11 is too generic of an architecture.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 2014-1-24 10:23, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> Also: Apparently the Raspberry Pi is _more powerful_ than the hardware
> that Mathematica was originally released for. (Apple Mac? Apple II??)

NeXT, wasn't it?

-- 
*\\* Anton Sherwood *\\* www.bendwavy.org

Post a reply to this message

On 25/02/2014 07:33 AM, Anton Sherwood wrote:
> On 2014-1-24 10:23, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> Also: Apparently the Raspberry Pi is _more powerful_ than the hardware
>> that Mathematica was originally released for. (Apple Mac? Apple II??)
>
> NeXT, wasn't it?

Yeah, you might be right about that...

Post a reply to this message