Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: X (was Re: NeXT & Interface Builders) Message-ID: <6828@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 19 Oct 90 02:47:46 GMT References: <33198@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <6803@sugar.hackercorp.com> <123395@linus.mitre.org> <2356@trlluna.trl.oz> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 29 In article <2356@trlluna.trl.oz> soh@shiva.trl.oz (kam hung soh) writes: > Many people don't like X because it doesn't specify a user interface > standard. That's a new one, actually. The problem with X is that it's very low level, so each application is responsible for the entire UI. There are no system supported menus, or gadgets, or icons... in fact, the system doesn't support anything but (in Amiga terms) layers. Everything else is the responsibility of the applications. This means that X programs are very large, and very complicated. It also means that X requires a lot more horsepower from the application processor than higher level systems like MGR or NeWS. Another result? Bigger and more complex toolkits that wrap the program around the user interface. > I don't really give a damn whether the computer I'm using has X or > Intuition or Windows. You're not a programmer. You can get the same results from MS-DOS or AmigaOS, but it's a hell of a lot harder when you basically have to rewrite the O/S every time you write a program. X is to windowing as DOS is to operating systems. Hands up everyone here who likes DOS. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .