Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!milo.mcs.anl.gov!atlantis.ees.anl.gov!korp From: korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov (Peter Korp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Alternatives to the Window System from Planet X Message-ID: <1990Oct23.140637.14956@mcs.anl.gov> Date: 23 Oct 90 14:06:37 GMT References: <34207@nigel.ee.udel.edu> Sender: news@mcs.anl.gov Distribution: comp.sys.next Organization: Advanced Computer Application Center, Argonne National Laboratory Lines: 69 Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.ees.anl.gov In article tim@ggumby.cs.caltech.edu (Timothy L. Kay) writes: [stuff deleted] >You claim that X bogs down the network? That is like saying that my >workstation gets bogged down by running programs in the background, >so I'd like an operating system that doesn't let programs run in the >background (e.g. MS-DOS). > I have run countless tests over both 9600bps SLIP links and ethernet and have found X to be such a dog that 3 machines running *intensive*(real?) graphics programs brought a subnet to its knees. As an analogy, why drive a car that gets 10 miles per gallon and goes 100 MPH when I have two alternatives that get better gas mileage and go faster? >Neither NeXTstep nor NeWS let you run over the network. This is a very >important feature of X that very few other window systems ever had. NeWS >doesn't have it and NeXTstep doesn't have it. If you don't want to bog >down your network, don't run X over the network. But don't keep me from >doing it. Bzzzttt... Wrong! Both NeXTstep and NeWS are networked window systems, (Its what the N in NeWS stands for), with more efficient network protocols. > >Have you ever used NeWS? It is awful. I have to learn PostScript and I >have to learn the entire NeWS run-time environment. Unfortunately, it >isn't documented. "Well, it is all written in PostScript, so read the >source," you say. Except that all the work gets done by PostScript >primitives which are written in C. For those you don't get the source. >While the idea behind NeWS is a good one, it is implemented very badly. > That is like saying that the only way to understand a C program is to know the assembly language representation. What part of NeWS do you think is good? >I have been using a Silicon Graphics Iris with NeWS. We and many of >their other customers complained so much that the next release of their >OS is throwing out NeWS and moving to X. > There is a long story behind this, one better discussed in another forum. >Also, there is no reason that you couldn't have a PostScript-based >X window manager. This would give you the best of both worlds. > This still doesn't provide a unified imaging model, as both NeXTstep and NeWS do. [ stuff about NeXTstep not being networkable deleted ] >I really think the NeXTstation looks like a good machine. I might buy >one. However, I wouldn't buy one if X weren't available. Thanks to >those who have ported it! And I would certainly buy one if NeXT >supported X. > >I might like the NeXTstation even more if it ran *just* X (skip NeXTstep >altogether). > Over Steve Jobs dead body! :-) >It is my opinion that NeXT will have to eventually support X. That is, >if they manage to see their fifth birthday. > No, someone will just port X to their machine, they will never have to officially support it. >Tim Peter -------------------------------------------------------------------------- These opinions are mine and not the Labs.