Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!dptcdc!berner!lethe!geac!jtsv16!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws
From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Contents of windows
Message-ID: <8905011149.AA00201@expire.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 1 May 89 11:49:21 GMT
References: <723@boing.UUCP>
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 20


    If they
    cannot be allocated it backs out of the operation and returns an error that
    the window could not be moved. The important thing here is that it does not
    lose the contents of the window.

This is a particular policy decision, one that may be fine for some
environments, but probably not all.  For example, this may mean that a
client at some point cannot get a dialog box popped up to ask the user some
vital question, or to warn the user of some vital event (e.g. system shutdown),
because the system believes backing-store bits are more important than a new
window.  Of course in any memory-limited system this kind of thing will happen
eventually.  But in a system with very limited memory, like an X terminal, it
isn't obvious to me that this policy is universally the right one.

    Give me a break, rws. Have you used the Amiga and seen it crash by just
    playing with the placement and geometry of the windows?

No, I've never used an Amiga, period, which is why I asked the question.
Sorry if I've offended you with my ignorance.