Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!seismo!rochester!ken
From: ken@rochester.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Postscript Vs Xwindows
Message-ID: <25865@rochester.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 12-Mar-87 15:35:47 EST
Article-I.D.: rocheste.25865
Posted: Thu Mar 12 15:35:47 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Mar-87 21:37:46 EST
References: <25862@rochester.ARPA>
Reply-To: ken@rochester.UUCP (SKY)
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Lines: 21

|will be providing PostScript as an extension to X, and Sun says they
|will be providing X as an extension to NeWS.  Sun has stated that they
|would like NeWS to run efficiently over slow serial lines, and they
|apparently have (several?) encoding schemes for this purpose, although
|I have never seen any details.

At the risk of generating controversy...

The examples I have heard Sun quote involve displays with highly
structured content, like Escher's fish drawing. This is something
I display everyday (t.i.c., :-)).

However I can see that if one can do image manipulation by sending
Postcript commands instead of the whole bitmap one might win. So, my
question is:  do the image processing experts reading this believe that
Postscript is an adequate image manipulation language?

Personally, I believe slow lines are destined to go away. Bending
software around a hardware limitation is not the way to go.

	Ken