cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier) (01/17/91)
The wholesale adoption of CGM and PHIGS in the federal Applications Portability Profile may or may not come with some extra baggage. If a corporation were to adopt CGM as a graphic standard but already had a reasonably large installed base of DOS packages and some investment in UNIX and VMS packages what weaknesses would one encounter in such a goal? Is it possible that one implementation of CGM is not compatible with another? Do software vendors take CGM seriously or only as an "export" feature? Will DOS CGM interface with VMS or UNIX CGM files? Can you dictate internal CGM file management for vendor products and work towards a rather seamless, transparent graphic file exchange. Does PHIGS hold up to the same standards as placed on CGM?
kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie) (01/17/91)
In <1991Jan16.204639.3679@linus.mitre.org> cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier) writes: >The wholesale adoption of CGM and PHIGS in the federal Applications >Portability Profile may or may not come with some extra baggage. If >a corporation were to adopt CGM as a graphic standard but already had >a reasonably large installed base of DOS packages and some investment >in UNIX and VMS packages what weaknesses would one encounter in such >a goal? Is it possible that one implementation of CGM is not compatible >with another? Do software vendors take CGM seriously or only as an "export" >feature? Will DOS CGM interface with VMS or UNIX CGM files? Can you dictate >internal CGM file management for vendor products and work towards a >rather seamless, transparent graphic file exchange. Does PHIGS hold up >to the same standards as placed on CGM? The most recent PC Magazine (vol 10, #2), p. 245, talks about CGM ("CGM: The Nonstandard Standard"). - Carl -- Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
jch@Stardent.COM (Jan Hardenbergh) (01/24/91)
> From: cazier@mbunix.mitre.org (Cazier) > The wholesale adoption of CGM and PHIGS in the federal Applications > Portability Profile may or may not come with some extra baggage. If > a corporation were to adopt CGM as a graphic standard but already had > a reasonably large installed base of DOS packages and some investment > in UNIX and VMS packages what weaknesses would one encounter in such > a goal? Is it possible that one implementation of CGM is not compatible > with another? Do software vendors take CGM seriously or only as an "export" > feature? Will DOS CGM interface with VMS or UNIX CGM files? There are several CGM implementations on the market. Most of them share a common ancestor - I forget??. So, there is reasonable transportability - especially if one limits what primititves are used. CGM, like PHIGS and GKS, is very big. Complete and compliant implementations did not exist as of a couple of years ago. > Can you dictate > internal CGM file management for vendor products and work towards a > rather seamless, transparent graphic file exchange? Depends on who "you" are - or how many systems you intend to buy. Several PHIGS implementations spit out CGM files meeting certain specs because large vendors said they had to. These are not always advertised to the public. But it is a very effective way to generate something for a plotter that you can spool off to do later. > Does PHIGS hold up to the same standards as placed on CGM? Even higher standards! Both are big; try to do too much; have corners that may be outdated - but both have bread and butter functions that are extremely strong. Hopefully, a concensus will form as to the best ways to use PHIGS & CGM and those paths will become easier. -- -Jan "YON" Hardenbergh jch@stardent.com (508)-371-9810x261 Stardent Computer, 6 N.E. Tech Center, 521 Virginia Rd,Concord, MA 01742