Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Contents of windows
Message-ID: <4009@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 27 Apr 89 19:23:42 GMT
References: <8904251538.AA00185@devnull.sun.com> <3985@ficc.uu.net> <466@esosun.UUCP>
Organization: Xenix Support
Lines: 25

In article <466@esosun.UUCP>, smithey@esosun.UUCP (Brian Smithey) writes:
> In article <3985@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >Now I may be dim, but I don't see how the lack of a guaranteed backing store
> >leads to the increased portability of X.

> >I find it hard to imagine a hardware system that can support X that doesn't
> >have memory to burn.

> How about the servers for non-virtual memory micros, such as the Amiga
> and Mac?

That's an interesting comparison, since the Amiga windowing system does
guarantee a backing-store for all windows. If Intuition can do it, why
not X? Particularly since with Intuition the Amiga is both the client and
the server...

An aside:

Speaking of clients and servers, the NeWS people don't seem to use the same
polarity of terminology. Am I misunderstanding or is there a conflict here?
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.

Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180.
Personal: ...!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.