Xref: utzoo comp.windows.open-look:1617 comp.windows.x:37291 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!spool.mu.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look,comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Openwin or X11R4 Keywords: OpenWin X11R4 Message-ID: <28@tdatirv.UUCP> Date: 6 Jun 91 22:02:14 GMT References: <1991May29.144727.5008@javelin.sim.es.com> <1991Jun01.232522.786@shawn.uucp> <1991Jun3.200112.17129@wlbr.imsd.contel.com> <1991Jun06.060759.420@shawn.uucp> Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) Followup-To: comp.windows.open-look Distribution: usa Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine Lines: 81 In article <1991Jun06.060759.420@shawn.uucp> root@shawn.uucp (Admin) writes: >Performance: I have used both. The MIT stuff is faster by my perception. On what machine? Using what version of OpenWindows? On a Sparc IPC with 12 megabytes of memory OpenWindows 2.0 runs so fast I do not see how it is *possible* to percieve a faster speed. [I.e. it runs at the speeds that correspond to the speed of human perception]. [Colloquially, it updates the screen 'in the blink of an eye']. Now of course on my *8* megabyte IPC there is a difference. >Portability: OpenWin has little or none of the standard utilities of > X-Windows. ... > ... This, to me, is > a valid component of "portability". Consider also that no > Athena toolkit example programs can be demonstrated in OW. I admit that this is a problem with OpenWindows as distributed. But there is nothing keeping you system administrator from installing all of the remaining X libraries along with the one that came with OpenWindows. [I would prefer it if Sun distributed all of the MIT libraries with OpenWindows, but it is by no means a fatal flaw]. We did that here, and I am running several Athena Widget based programs just fine under OpenWindows. (I use xman regularly). Also, I find that the XView library is easier to program than any of the widget sets. (And I am *not* an old Sunview programmer, my first window programming was X based). >Quality: The server core dumps often, both on Sun 3's and Sparcs. Which version of OpenWindows *were* you running! I have *never* had the Sparc OpenWindows 2.0 server crash on me. In fact the only servers I have ever crashed were the Sun386i OpenWindows 1.0 and the MIT X11r4 server on a Sun386i. Yes, that's right, I have had the *MIT* server crash more often than my Sun server. > Dbxtool > constantly crashes with no good reason. Yep, dbxtool is a crock. That's why I use xdbx! > Scrollbars erratically > jump you in the wrong direction and have virtually worthless > visual feedback. Hmm, this sounds like an old version again. The only scrollbars I have ever had significant trouble with lately are the *Motif* scrollbars in Framemaker. Just today I jumped many pages forward in a document when I *thought* I was *dragging* the scrollbar. (I had missed the elevator by a few pixels and it was treating my button press as repeated clicks below the elevator). > Guide is bug ridden and breaks data consistently. I have never used Guide, and I hope I never do. If I am going to use an application generator, I would prefer one that is GUI independent. [I think apps should tailor themselves to the individual user at run time]. > Cursor warping is inconsistent, which is worse that having it > always or never. Is this enough, or do I have to have more? This is not an OpenWindows vs MIT issue - this is a GUI issue. It applies equally well to the OpenLook GUI support that comes with the MIT distribution. [Both olwm and an old version of Xview are on the MIT tapes]. > The MIT port is better. SImple as that. I have failed to find any truly consistant differences. Especially after making sure I had all the libraries. In summary I think my main complaint about OpenWindows is that it doesn't contain all of the libraries by default. And i consider this a *minor* problem with a trivial fix. -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)