Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!arizona.edu!cerritos.edu!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!ucla-cs!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!decwrl!pacbell.com!pacbell!sactoh0!unify!openlook!openlook-request From: fgreco@govt.shearson.com (Frank Greco) Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look Subject: Message-ID: Date: 7 Jun 91 18:42:10 GMT Sender: news@Unify.Com Lines: 71 In article <1991Jun06.060759.420@shawn.uucp> you write: >Performance: I have used both. The MIT stuff is faster by my perception. What OS? What machine? What graphics accelerator? What X version, How much RAM? What is your typical network bandwidth? What type of applications? What language are you using? What other non-X stuff is running concurrently? Faster at doing: Creating windows? Moving windows? Mouse movement? Event handling? Destroying windows? Drawing lines? Filling polygons? Rendering Postscript? Doing animation? Opinion is fine, but "is faster by my perception" needs a bit of qualification, wouldn't you say? >Portability: OpenWin has little or none of the standard utilities of >X-Windows. It is largely a politically motivated product, I suppose that DEC and IBM initially funding MIT for X Window wasn't? > meant to continue looking as much like Sun's old technology > as possible. I have to deal with many an X Window student > who is bewildered by the nearly total lack of similarity > between what the world largely regards as a "typical" X > environment and what OW sticks them with. This, to me, is > a valid component of "portability". Consider also that no > Athena toolkit example programs can be demonstrated in OW. Why not? I run Athena stuff (and anything else from MIT) on my SS with OW all the time. Granted I had to snarf them off the net, but they work here. We have Sun3's and SPARC machines that are identical in "similarity" (ie, non-computer type users cannot tell them apart). Perhaps you are not configuring your machines correctly. Heck, students that I know all use as many window managers and applications as they can find using both MIT X and Sun's OW. They understand what X is and what it is not. Perhaps their bewilderment could be tempered with some education about window systems and toolkits. It also seems that your definition of "typical" is your own opinion and not fact. >Quality: The server core dumps often, both on Sun 3's and Sparcs. Dbxtool > constantly crashes with no good reason. Scrollbars erratically > jump you in the wrong direction and have virtually worthless > visual feedback. Guide is bug ridden and breaks data consistently. > Cursor warping is inconsistent, which is worse that having it > always or never. Is this enough, or do I have to have more? > The MIT port is better. SImple as that. Wow. My server doesn't core dump often. Yes it dumps, but just as "often" as the MIT server. I've never had dbxtool break (although dbx has). While they're not optimal, our users find OL scrollbars very intuitive. I have found bugs with devGUIDE, but its an overexaggeration to say its bug-ridden (how many rev 1's of products do you know were perfect?); and what data does it "break"? I don't follow what you're saying about cursor warping, so I don't follow you there. I simply don't agree with you. The MIT folks have done a great job; the Sun people have done a great job (considering that their server handles X and NeWS and Sunview is just less than a miracle). They're not perfect, but considering the relative immaturity of window systems, both groups are doing a phenomenal job. If you think a product that you are using has bugs, report them to the vendor so that it can be fixed if it is truly broken. Its your responsibility as a user. >I did not elaborate because I have limited time to read news >and even less time to write long dissertations (sp?). E x c u s e M e.... So do a lot of us, but your posting just hit a nerve so I had to reply. Frank G.