Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!camex!circus!kent From: kent@circus.camex.com (Kent Borg) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: UNIX BLIT terminal emulator wanted for the Mac Plus Message-ID: <1611@camex.COM> Date: 31 Oct 90 18:28:50 GMT References: <1990Oct27.124647.19095@nlm.nih.gov> <1599@camex.COM> Sender: news@Camex.COM Reply-To: kent@camex.com (Kent Borg) Organization: Camex Inc., Boston, MA Lines: 30 In article scotth@rocco.labs.tek.com (Scott Herzinger) writes: >How does Unix Windows differ from MacLayers? ML supports file transfer. >Does UW? What about terminal emulation, resizeable windows, meta key >support, etc.? On a feature comparison, MacLayers clearly beats uw, and if you need file transfer get a copy of MacLayers (probably from the standard ftp and list server sites). From a user's prespective, uw is better. It is simply much better designed. Much cleaner. When MacLayers came down the net I eagerly tried it--and didn't like it. On the Mac end it committed various user interface crimes and on the Unix end it seem to keep its server running after I logged off. I was probably doing something wrong, but with uw I didn't have as many problems. I went back to uw. I wish Mr. Bruner would add a few more features and do as good a job with them as he did with the overall program. Conclusion: If you have to do file transfer or scroll back in your windows, get MacLayers. If you want a cleaner program that is missing those features, get uw. Or, get both and then decide. -- Kent Borg internet: kent@camex.com AOL: kent borg H:(617) 776-6899 W:(617) 426-3577 "The prospect of their mass excites astrophysicists, who are always on the lookout for ways to make the universe heavier" -- The Economist, 9-22-90