Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.programmer
Subject: Re: Desqview/X
Summary: Desqview/X
Message-ID: <1990Dec29.195755.13249@rti.rti.org>
Date: 29 Dec 90 19:57:55 GMT
References: <26049@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <998@pdxgate.UUCP> <26096@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 29

In article <26096@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>, jdb@reef.cis.ufl.edu (Brian K. W. Hook) writes:
> Well, looking at the little booklet they gave me, it says that Desqview/X
> will multitask real-mode, 16-bit protected, adn 32-bit protected mode
> software.  It supports X11, and has a Desqview Window Manager, OSF/Motif
> Window Manager, and Open Look window manager available, soon to be
> followed by a TAB Window Manager and XVT....
> 
> I don't know what kind of machine or hardware requirements are, but it seems
> pretty lean compared to Windows 3.0 (bleh).  I just wish I knew more about
> pricing, what is the advantages and disadvantages of writing for Desqview/X,
> etc.  It would be nice to find out that Desqview/X code was completely 
> portable to all X machines.

Well-written X code is reasonably portable to other X machines (modulo
bugs in the vendor's version of X).  You don't get binary compatibility
(but I don't think anyone would expect that given the number of
different machines that are running X, and without some of the
postcompilation tools that are still more-or-less on the wish list
rather than actual, widely-available products).

It's certainly possible to write _very_ portable code on X, but it's
also possible to write very UNportable code.  Given the number of
different X implementations, there's just no way that you could get
_complete_ portability (even at the source code level) unless the
application was well-written to start with.

Sort of like Unix in general ...

						Bruce C. Wright