Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu!kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu!JONESD From: JONESD@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu (David Jones) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Non-Unix X clients? Message-ID: <4898@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu> Date: 3 May 90 16:05:33 GMT References: <5400@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> Sender: news@quanta.eng.ohio-state.edu Organization: Ohio State University Lines: 36 I don't see what your point is. It seems like you want evidence to support or refute premise 3 of the argument: since: 1. The advantages of distributed applications are not easily perceived. 2. X applications run much faster if the X is replaced by a window system optimized for access to local hardware. 3. All X applications can run on my workstation using a different window system because the application was written under unix and my workstation runs unix. therefore: Its hard to justify writing X-based applications because X overhead degrades the quality of the application while apparently gaining little. The problem with premise 3 is that it assumes that the framebuffer window system on all hardware made by different manufacturers will be the same just because they are running unix. You need to define a standard that people can conform all their applications to. I think premise 1 will become less valid over time as people's work habits change. As for X-applications with a non-unix origin, VMS has a few pretty slick applications. The bookreader application has no widely known analogue under unix. There are also DECwindows front ends for the symbolic debugger and the performance coverage analyzer, which are VMS specific. David L. Jones | Phone: (614) 292-6929 Ohio State Unviversity | Internet: 1971 Neil Ave. Rm. 406 | jonesd@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu Columbus, OH 43210 | jones-d@eng.ohio-state.edu Disclaimer: A repudiation of a claim.