Xref: utzoo comp.windows.open-look:1658 comp.windows.x:37494 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!bu.edu!polygen!bill From: bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look,comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Openwin or X11R4 Message-ID: <1130@redford.UUCP> Date: 12 Jun 91 15:09:22 GMT References: <1991May29.144727.5008@javelin.sim.es.com> <1991Jun01.232522.786@shawn.uucp> <1991Jun3.200112.17129@wlbr.imsd.contel.com> <1991Jun06.060208.181@shawn.uucp> Reply-To: bill@redford.UUCP (Bill Poitras(X258)) Organization: Polygen Corporation, Waltham, MA Lines: 31 In article jon@choctaw.b23b.ingr.com (Jon Stone) writes: > Performance: I have used both. The MIT stuff is faster by my perception. > >As for the other xnews bugs you mention, I don't know much about them. Could some one post a summary of xnews/Openwindows gripes. I would be interested in seeing them. The only problem I see with Openwindows is the fact that the X server doesn't do a good job of storing font properties. I ported a large system from X11R3 -> X11R4 -> xnews. The xnews port was a pain because I didn't know that we relied so heavily on the font properties of the server fonts, which xnews doesn't store. Also it doesn't have all the MIT extensions (SHAPE, Multi-Buffering, ...) As far as the speed and size of the server I think some people forget a couple of facts about xnews 1) It runs X. 2) It runs NeWS, which also makes it a nice postscript interpreter 3) It runs SunView applications. For the first person who says "Who cares", I can already say: "Some of my customers" MIT X does only 1. +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+ | Bill Poitras | Polygen Corporation | {princeton bu}!polygen!bill | | (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | - This space for rent - | | | FAX (617)890-8694 | bill@polygen.com | +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+