Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!sun-barr!decwrl!decvax!crltrx!max.crl.dec.com!jg
From: jg@max.crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Re^2: Gadgets in Motif
Message-ID: <582@crltrx.crl.dec.com>
Date: 28 Aug 89 21:41:31 GMT
References: <2586@arisia.Xerox.COM> <322.8908161255@jupiter.cmi.no> <1443@riscy.dec.com> <122257@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@crltrx.crl.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Cambridge Research Laboratory
Lines: 27

> I thought that "the X Window System" was spec'ed that way?  Are you
> implying that some implementations have failed to meet system design
> goals?

If you look at X10, you will find that windows used a small fraction of
the amount of memory of
windows in the current (R3) sample server implementation.  The X11
sample server implementation was
originally done under tremendous time pressure (I know R1 almost killed
me and those people working
on it with me).  Getting the spec implemented was more important than
getting it small and fast
(or at least that is what everyone was telling us).

I think you'll see R4 server memory usage dramatically better than R3,
and very much higher windowing
performance, given the work that Bob, Kieth Packard, and Joel McCormack
have done.  But I'll let Bob 
comment on how much better when the time is appropriate; I know I am
extremely happy with what I know about
it :-).

So yes, windows should be regarded as "cheap".  They are not "free"
however.  But as I've
stayed away from toolkit wars, I'll stay away from commenting on whether
gadgets are a good idea or not.
				- Jim