Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu From: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy Subject: Re: NeXT/Amiga Flamage: Get a life. Message-ID: <46969@ut-emx.uucp> Date: 10 Apr 91 01:13:05 GMT References: <10834@uwm.edu> <46833@ut-emx.uucp> <1991Apr9.014258.5903@cc.helsinki.fi> Sender: news@ut-emx.uucp Reply-To: greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) Organization: The University of Texas at Austin Lines: 51 In article <1991Apr9.014258.5903@cc.helsinki.fi> jalkio@cc.helsinki.fi writes: >In article <46833@ut-emx.uucp>, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Greg Harp) writes: >> >> I'm not saying that DP is a "Bad Thing." I just think they shouldn't have >> centered the GUI on it so much. It would have made more sense to have a >> window-type that was DP. You can get device-independant graphics with out it. > >Well, I think it is quite nicely consistent that _everything_ you draw >on the screen on a NeXT is done with Postscript. I hate add-ons and >gludges. I want everything to be clear. It wouldn't be an add-on kluge. It would be a window type. You could have window types like raw text, DP, simple image graphics, and whatever else you can think of. You could then use the correctly-suited window type for your app. Certainly Emacs and your compiler don't need to be churning out PostScript. They would be more suited to a raw text window type. I'm just saying that DP _has_ it's place, but making it a required part of the display is just wasting CPU. >Hmm. Let me add my opinion about the NeXT GUI speed: > >The interface was too slow with 68030 and _8 MB memory_. With 68040 and >8 MB or 68030 and 16 MB the speed is just fine (I am not a robot - I >can't press 10 buttons in one second). With 68040 and 16 MB the speed >should be more than enough. Personally, I am ready to trade the overfast >responsivity for more flexibility and nifty features. And when you do >nuber-crunching, the speed is as it was with a simpler GUI. Don't you see that it's kind of outrageous (even on a Unix box) to require so much memory before you get a decent response out of the GUI? Sure, it's "just fine" with 8MB... until you start running something else and NeXTStep gets swapped out. I'm not defending X Windows either. They're both memory pigs. >If you think that super-responsiveness is more important than usable >responsivity and more functionality, why don't you just give up using >GUIs and go back to the plain command line prompt interfaces? Why? Because I've got a fast and functional GUI! If it was slow or a big memory hog I wouldn't run it. That's the primary reason we still develop under MS-DOS at work. Windows is a torturesome environment to program under. Swapswapswapswapswapswap.... > Jouni Alkio, Helsinki, Finland Greg -- Greg Harp |"How I wish, how I wish you were here. We're just two |lost souls swimming in a fishbowl, year after year, greg@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu|running over the same ground. What have we found? s609@cs.utexas.edu |The same old fears. Wish you were here." - Pink Floyd