mckay@ea.ecn.purdue.edu.UUCP (09/12/87)
Do the folks who are suggesting a port of X for the ST know that NeWS has already been ported to the ST? That's right, Sun's NeWS window system has been ported to the ST by some folks at Sun. I've seen pictures of it. And my Sun salesman claims Sun is undecided about what to do with. So.. 1) If you want NeWS, put some pressure on your local Sun representative. I'm trying to get a copy of NeWS for the ST from mine. 2) Big window systems *can* be ported to the ST. The folks considering the X port should be happy to know it can be done. Having both would put the Atari ST way ahead in terms of offering standard window interfaces. --Dwight Mckay, ECN Workstation Software Support [arpanet: mckay@ee.ecn.purdue.edu, usenet: ...ihnp4!pur-ee!mckay] [Compu-serve: 75776,1521, office: EE 348B, phone: (317) 494-3561]
hays@apollo.uucp (John Hays) (09/14/87)
In article <484@ea.ecn.purdue.edu> mckay@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Dwight D Mckay) writes: > >Do the folks who are suggesting a port of X for the ST know that NeWS has >already been ported to the ST? Yes. > 2) Big window systems *can* be ported to the ST. The folks >considering the X port should be happy to know it can be done. Having both >would put the Atari ST way ahead in terms of offering standard window >interfaces. X is probably more important from the point of view of who is behind it as a standard (DEC,HP,APOLLO,ADOBE,...) and the fact that it is controlled by a university (MIT -- Non-proprietary). The source is available for a minimal cost. If the NeWS people want to sell it for the ST, Great, I like options. -- John D. Hays, Consultant, Corporate Systems Engineering | My opinions are my Apollo Computer Inc. - Chelmsford, MA - USA | own -- If anyone ARPA: apollo!hays@EDDIE.MIT.EDU // UUCP: apollo!hays | really cares! PACKET RADIO: KD7UW @ K1UGM // CIS: 72725,424 GEnie: KD7UW // PO Box 21, 01824
benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (09/15/87)
In article <3746154a.9540@apollo.uucp>, hays@apollo.uucp (John Hays) writes: > In article <484@ea.ecn.purdue.edu> mckay@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Dwight D Mckay) writes: > X is probably more important from the point of view of who is behind it as a > standard (DEC,HP,APOLLO,ADOBE,...) and the fact that it is controlled by a > university (MIT -- Non-proprietary). The source is available for a minimal cost. > If the NeWS people want to sell it for the ST, Great, I like options. > -- > John D. Hays, Actually I think X is Dead On Arrival...(I've seen it on an IBM RT) ... Some of the existing windowing systems like Sun Windows and Apollo's DM windows are *much* nicer. The value of X and NeWS lies in the server activity rather than the windows. NeWS by most accounts is a more elegant...You are able to do some interesting things like putting up circular windows, etc. Further NeWS is postscript based. The only imaginable reason that Apollo, DEC, and HP chose to go with X is that Sun was creating another standard that *they* would have to live with. The fact that there is a version that runs on an ST is a testimony to it's flexability. Other postings to this newsgroup have already mentioned that some people already have given up on porting X to the ST. Not exactly an ad for the system. Incidentally, Sun currently sells binary versions of NeWS for $100 (probably what MIT charges for media)... Now if Sun would only release an ST version of NeWS.....
turner@daisy.UUCP (09/16/87)
> > > Do the folks who are suggesting a port of X for the ST know that NeWS has > already been ported to the ST? > > That's right, Sun's NeWS window system has been ported to the ST by some > folks at Sun. I've seen pictures of it. And my Sun salesman claims Sun is > undecided about what to do with. > > So.. > NO... its not So.. what sun actually did was build a NeWS 'server' on their 68000 box, convert the object file to TOS format and run it on the ST. The program made NO use of TOS, GEM or the ST as anything but a 68K box with a bitmap, sorry to dissappoint you but this came from the people who did the work (i was interviewing with them for a job at the time) the last that i heard sun had no plans to do anything with it -- C'est la vie, C'est la guerre, C'est la pomme de terre {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,seismo!ihnp4,ucbvax}!nsc!daisy!turner Jim Turner Daisy Systems, 700 E. Middlefield Rd, P.O. Box 7006, Mountain View CA 94039-7006. (415)960-0123
alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) (09/18/87)
In article <1425@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: > [..several nested msgs on X vs NeWS omitted..] >Actually I think X is Dead On Arrival...(I've seen it on an IBM RT) ... DOA on the ST, or in general? (Personally, I wouldn't base my opinion of *any* software that I'd only seen run on IBM hardware - unless that's all it would run on) >Some of the existing windowing systems like Sun Windows and Apollo's DM >windows are *much* nicer. Maybe so, but at what time/space expense? > [..more anti-X comments..] I don't want this to degenerate into religious_wars.windows, but personally I'd like to see X for the ST. Maybe it isn't the "best" (whatever that means) window system, but I work with 4 different mfg's hardware, and X runs on all of it (including the Suns). Makes software porting a lot easier. It'd sure be nice to use some of that on my ST, or to use my ST to develop software at home. X may have a few faults, but it *does* work, it *is* a standard, and there's a lot of software out there based on it. (Gad, I sound like I'm justifying MS-DOS. Oh well...) So lay of the religious wars. X for the ST? I'm all for it. -- Alastair JW Mayer BIX: al UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars.
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (09/21/87)
Since I work at Sun a couple of people a week ask me whether or not NeWS
will be available/ported/sold for the Atari/Amiga/Mac/IBM-PC. The answer
is "There are no current plans for Sun to market NeWS for any microcomputer."
But the better answer is, the source license is $25,000. Do the port
(it isn't too tough if you have multiasking or can fake it in some way)
and then sell 250 copies of the binaries at $100 each to pay of the
cost of the source license. But this is not the reason for the message ...
A significant portion of the people who ask about NeWS (and X) want to
know if it 'replaces' GEM. And that points out a fundamental misconception
about what you get when you get a server based window system. What you
get is a program that is a window 'service.' That is, you can send it
requests, and get requests from it. This is not unlike a terminal program
that emulates a DEC VT100 terminal. The difference being that there are
several 'sessions' going on at once and the machine at the other end of
the line need only know about the window system protocol (like DEC machines
know about the VT100 protocol) to be able to use the interface to it's
maximum advantage. What this means is, that if you get NeWS or X you
will *also* want to connect your machine to one that talks the window
system protocol (like a Sun server, or possibly something like the 'TT')
You don't always have enough power left to support both the NeWS client
code and other applications as well.
So for those of you who want one of these window systems, encourage those
software firms to contact Sun (or MIT) for a liscense and some source
code.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (09/23/87)
In article <167@geovision.UUCP>, alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes: > I don't want this to degenerate into religious_wars.windows, but > personally I'd like to see X for the ST. Maybe it isn't the "best" > (whatever that means) window system, but I work with 4 different > mfg's hardware, and X runs on all of it (including the Suns). Makes > software porting a lot easier. It'd sure be nice to use some of that > on my ST, or to use my ST to develop software at home. Agreed. I should have toned down my message, since i have no desire to start a "religous war". My impressions were gleaned from an RT which is probably not the best place. One of the major advantages of X11 IS that source code is available for $150 from MIT. An X port is apparently already underway from the Idris folks... of course Idris costs $$$. If Atari is a clever company they are working on a Unix/X or Unix/NeWS port to the Megas right now ...(and for all i know they are)... The combination of GEM/TOS was good two years ago ... (at least from a financial point of view) ... offering a choice on the Megas between GEM/TOS and Unix/[NeWS/X] would have been fairly bright ...
bae@lll-tis.arpa (Hwa Jin Bae) (10/05/87)
In article <1445@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >In article <167@geovision.UUCP>, alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes: >> I don't want this to degenerate into religious_wars.windows, but >> personally I'd like to see X for the ST. Maybe it isn't the "best" >> (whatever that means) window system, but I work with 4 different >> mfg's hardware, and X runs on all of it (including the Suns). Makes >> software porting a lot easier. It'd sure be nice to use some of that >> on my ST, or to use my ST to develop software at home. deleted some lines for brevity... > >The combination of GEM/TOS was good two years ago ... (at least from >a financial point of view) ... offering a choice on the Megas between >GEM/TOS and Unix/[NeWS/X] would have been fairly bright ... As far as software portability is concerned, I have another in mind. I heard some time ago that Productivity Procducts International (PPI) - I think this is right - has release a product line based on software IC concept that works with their Objective-C language. What they did was to provide window library independent programming environment that works with Sun window library calls, X-window libraries, etc... Basically, you can use the window software IC as a class library for the Objective-C language programs. The window based application program you write would run on any system that PPI provides window software IC for. I think PPI was also mentioning something about MS-windows compatibility. Does anyone know more about this?