szabo@sequent.com (06/10/91)
In article <497@octelb.octel.UUCP> richard@octel.UUCP (Richard Karasik) writes: > One comment -X is and has always been a network pig ... do not rule > out Motif (also not so nice but better than X) Hate to break the news, but Motif runs over X. If X is a network pig, Motif must be a cow.... -- Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com "If you understand something the first time you see it, you probably knew it already. The more bewildered you are, the more successful the mission was." -- Ed Stone, Voyager space explorer
arshad@cs.ed.ac.uk (Arshad Mahmood) (06/11/91)
In article <1991Jun10.021500.13402@sequent.com> szabo@sequent.com writes: >In article <497@octelb.octel.UUCP> richard@octel.UUCP (Richard Karasik) writes: >> One comment -X is and has always been a network pig ... do not rule >> out Motif (also not so nice but better than X) > >Hate to break the news, but Motif runs over X. If X is a network pig, >Motif must be a cow.... Yes I agree. However, most of these tools built on top of X tend to do a lot of buffering. Hence, taking a little of the load off. Therefore, they can sometimes be substantially faster than Xlib. >Nick Szabo szabo@sequent.com Best Wishes, A. Mahmood
rtdickerson@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (russel dickerson) (06/14/91)
>Yes I agree. However, most of these tools built on top of X tend to do >a lot of buffering. Hence, taking a little of the load off. Therefore, >they can sometimes be substantially faster than Xlib. I agree. Studies were done at NASA (JSC) and presented at the X-in-Space '90 conference showing the dramatic difference between a strait X and a X toolkit application. The study went on to compare Xt and Motif and found Motif to be even better in its efficiency (I was suprised). [copies of the conference proceedings are probably available from the SEPEC office at the University of Houston - Clear Lake ] -- Russell Dickerson : Internet: dickerson@vf.jsc.nasa.gov +1 713 283 5193 Lockheed (LESC) % Space Station Freedom Software Support Environment (SSE) [ The prior material was generated by the standard issue opinion generator and in no way represents my employeer/NASA/ or maybe even myself ]
droberts@ai.mit.edu (David Robertson) (06/19/91)
In article <rtdickerson.676906047@node_25d97>, rtdickerson@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (russel dickerson) writes: |> |> >Yes I agree. However, most of these tools built on top of X tend to do |> >a lot of buffering. Hence, taking a little of the load off. Therefore, |> >they can sometimes be substantially faster than Xlib. |> |> |> I agree. Studies were done at NASA (JSC) and presented at the |> X-in-Space '90 conference showing the dramatic difference |> between a strait X and a X toolkit application. The study went |> on to compare Xt and Motif and found Motif to be even better in |> its efficiency (I was suprised). |> |> [copies of the conference proceedings are probably available from |> the SEPEC office at the University of Houston - Clear Lake ] |> A little more information for an X-illiterate guy, please. Xt is a set of Xlib calls. Motif is a set of calls to Xt. Thus anything you can do in Motif, you can do in Xt (although the reverse is not true). Anything you can do in Xt, you can do in Xlib (and the reverse is again not true). How can Motif be "more efficient?" It would depend on how you write the code in Xt, wouldn't it? It seems a more valid comparison would be between Open Look and Motif- two libraries written in Xt. |> |> -- |> Russell Dickerson : Internet: dickerson@vf.jsc.nasa.gov +1 713 283 5193 |> Lockheed (LESC) % Space Station Freedom Software Support Environment (SSE) |> [ The prior material was generated by the standard issue opinion generator |> and in no way represents my employeer/NASA/ or maybe even myself ]