In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Michael L Torrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>Well, try winaxe. It's probably much lighter than xfree.
I have an aversion to spending significant money on such projects -
(perhaps I'm in second student-hood!) ...
and the actual XWin server is no great biggy (about 4Mb - though of
course MI/X is only about 1Mb IIRC).
Incidentally, the recent changes in the XWin server mean it now runs on
9x/ME - it previously ran only on NT & 2000.
>
>I think I suddenly understand what you're trying to do. You're running an
>X server on a windows machine and then running win4lin remotely inside of
>it? Or just trying to use linux remotely. I understand now.
Yes(?), I'm running linux remotely, and running win4lin (on the remote
machine) under that - pardon my confusing you!
>
>MI/X crashes most of the time with most modern X apps.
I find it's not as bad as that - eg it will run Netscape 4.7 on most
sites I want to browse - and MicroImages are considering upgrading to
R6, they say (I think we should encourage them).
>I really liked
>winaxe, but haven't found a need to use a win32 X server.
'maintain flexibility of response?'
- besides the svga linux-driver issue (ie there isn't one for the Miro
12PD), the win95 ('local') machine also has on it a scanner & raster
printer which, alas, work better under M$. So I opt (a little
reluctantly) to leave it optimised for, and running in, win95. It sees
the main ('remote') machine as a Samba-server of course.
Using telnet I can do many cli-based things on the remote machine with
no need to reboot the local one out of win95 - so it seems a logical
extension, given the extent to which I use win4lin and Turnpike (and the
modem link) on the remote box, to get an X display on the win95 box.
>
>Michael
--
robert w hall
_______________________________________________
Win4Lin-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.netraverse.com/mailman/listinfo/win4lin-users
