Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!clyde.concordia.ca!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!rpi!crdgw1!grymoire!barnett From: barnett@grymoire.crd.ge.com (Bruce Barnett) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Is SUN a "PURE PLAYER" in window systems - SunView or OpenWindows??? Message-ID: <4769@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Date: 12 Jan 90 12:05:21 GMT References: <13324@granite.BBN.COM> <8912302010.AA11723@super.super.org> <13323@diamond.BBN.COM> <1558@riscy.dec.com> Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com Organization: GE Corp. R & D, Schenectady, NY Lines: 27 In article <1558@riscy.dec.com> graham@fuel.dec.com (kris graham) writes: |One of my co-workers, Larry Timmins, has been involved in multiple ports |of applications originally done with Sun's toolkits. On average, for every six |months (calendar time) that the customer/software house put into the project, |only one month was needed with DECwindows' XUI toolkit. Using the Intrinsics |-based toolkit reduces the network requests and ultimately has proven itself |over and over. I question this. If the toolkit was SunView, there are no network requests. How can you reduce zero? It the toolkit was NeWS based, the application could be tuned to reduce network traffic to the minimum needed. If the toolkit was Xview (which seems unlikely), the program might come from the semi-automatic conversion of SunView to XView. This typically includes a PixWin emulation package that should be re-written into the proper Xlib routines for efficiency reasons. In the 6 months of the customer time, how much was spend on just the toolkit? I expect a lot of that time was spend on writing the application itself, and your 6 months :: 1 month ratio is not a valid comparison. If you have any facts to justify your claim, I would really be interested. -- Bruce G. Barnett barnett@crd.ge.com uunet!crdgw1!barnett