ralphw@IUS3.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Ralph Hyre) (04/18/88)
>In article <1779@uoregon.UUCP> jqj@drizzle.UUCP (JQ Johnson) writes: >>Personally, I would prefer to see a standardized user interface (i.e. >>with the SAME "look and feel") available for all the machines my >>users are likely to touch. > > >There already is one. It's called X-Windows. ... Well, this isn't exactly true. The X Window System defines a standard communications protocol which allows low-level communcations between the following entities: - window system clients (applications that use the X Window System for I/O) - servers (which manage the display and input devices, typically a keyboard and pointing device such as a mouse). It expliciticly does NOT define a standard user interface. That is left up to the application developer. There are groups working on 'toolkits' which support consistent user-interface building across a range of applications. It's a lot to expect that these will be portable between all Unix systems, much less microcomputers running even more stripped-down operating systems. In the microcomputer arena, 'uw' (Unix Windows) seems to have some potential although I don't think an IBM PC implementation exists. If there were a graphics interface suitable for the slow-speed links that exist in this environment, then it would be more suitable as a general-purpose 'window system' -- - Ralph W. Hyre, Jr. Internet: ralphw@ius2.cs.cmu.edu Phone:(412)268-{2847,3275} CMU-{BUGS,DARK} Amateur Packet Radio: N3FGW@W2XO, or c/o W3VC, CMU Radio Club, Pittsburgh, PA