root@shawn.uucp (0000-Admin(0000)) (06/06/91)
mh@roger.imsd.contel.com (Mike Hoegeman) writes: >In article <1991Jun01.232522.786@shawn.uucp> root@shawn.uucp (0000-Admin(0000)) writes: >>bgeer@javelin.sim.es.com (Bob Geer) writes: >> >>>So, I'm tempted to "off" openwin & load up a "generic" X11R4 & Motif >>>into a more typical directory layout -- /usr/bin/X11, etc. Anyone got >>>comments on this plan -- good, bad, indifferent? >> >>The virgin X11R4 from MIT is infinitely superior to OpenWindows, both in >>performance, portability, and quality. You can certainly put Motif in, >>but the 'twm' window manager that comes free with the MIT stuff is also >>not bad...perhaps a good intermin solution while saving money to buy >>Motif... >> >>>Thanks in advance...Bob >> >>Mark Jeghers >Infinitely ?? Give me a break. You probably have valid reasons on why >you prefer the MIT X over xnews . You list none of them however. You >merely state it is "infintely superior". What a crock. I 've used both >on a sun 4/370 and on various sparc workstations and it is not >infinitely worse. .....lots of rhetorical flaming deleted... In answer: I did not elaborate because I have limited time to read news and even less time to write long dissertations (sp?). I still hold to my opinion that the MIT release is superior in performance, portability, and quality. And it is *not*, as you put it, a "crock". It is simply my opinion, which you need not accept. Performance: I have used both. The MIT stuff is faster by my perception. Portability: OpenWin has little or none of the standard utilities of X-Windows. It is largely a politically motivated product, meant to continue looking as much like Sun's old technology as possible. I have to deal with many an X Window student who is bewildered by the nearly total lack of similarity between what the world largely regards as a "typical" X environment and what OW sticks them with. This, to me, is a valid component of "portability". Consider also that no Athena toolkit example programs can be demonstrated in OW. I'll grant you that OLIT is there for doing intrinsics programming, but still I feel that the Open Windows is hardly "open". Quality: The server core dumps often, both on Sun 3's and Sparcs. Dbxtool constantly crashes with no good reason. Scrollbars erratically jump you in the wrong direction and have virtually worthless visual feedback. Guide is bug ridden and breaks data consistently. Cursor warping is inconsistent, which is worse that having it always or never. Is this enough, or do I have to have more? The MIT port is better. SImple as that. >I suspect that you just don't like the fact that xnews source is not >free and that the MIT server source is. This seems to offend you deeply >and thus xnews is trash and MIT X is God's gift to windowdom. Nonsense. Don't put words in my mouth. What I have said is what I have said. I think OpenWindows is a very poor product and I prefer MIT X11R4 by a very wide margin. You don't have to agree. But don't include me in your straw-man burnings.
bgeer@javelin.sim.es.com (Bob Geer) (06/06/91)
Literally all of the responses I have received in e-mail or postings that have made it to our node are favorable to X11R4. Several correspondents are neutral or barely favorable to Openwin, many are downright derrogatory towards it. Prevailing attitude is, if you have enough disk space, keep both around, run X11R4, start Openwin only if you need it. Without enough disk space, off Openwin. A few of the Openwin tools are nice, but the hassles of dealing with Sun's bogus X directory layout is a large pain. A couple of considerate individuals included brief instructions for using Openwin programs under X11R4. When doing this I ran into "font not found", "lib___ not current" & "couldn't find xv_get" type error statements. These are probably resolvable, but I'm expected to be productive on my assigned projects, & resolving these things looks like a short-term career commitment by itself. So, we're going to off Openwin & load X11R4 & Motif. EDITORIAL RANTING: I had occasion to hear McNeeley (Sun bigwig) give a keynote address to the Novelle conference held here in Ootah recently. His presentation was primarily a bashing of the rest of the Unix/Networking community for not cowtowing to Sun's attempts to dominate/direct development of standards. He was especially derrogatory towards OSF participants. He didn't say why Sun's approach was better; his comments were essentially snide & facetious & without informational content. Another comment he made was that you should "throw away" any workstation you have that you replace with one of better performance -- a rather arrogant attitude towards those folks still effectively using Sun3's, & consistent with their stated intention of not supporting Sun3 SunOS past 4.1 or so. It looks like Openwin's idiosyncratic implimentation of X is consistent with the otherwise selfish & arrogant attitude reflected in the content of McNeeley's address -- any standard, as long as it's Sun's. & besides...I don't like their stupid keyboards! -- <> Bob `Bear' Geer <> bgeer%javelin.sim.es.com (this *should* work) <> <> cola-zombie <> speaking only for myself, one of my many tricks <> <> Salt Lake City, <> "We must strive to be more than we are, Lal." <> <> Ootah <> -- Cmdr. Data, learning schmaltz <>
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (06/07/91)
In article <1991Jun06.060759.420@shawn.uucp> root@shawn.uucp (Admin) writes: >Performance: I have used both. The MIT stuff is faster by my perception. On what machine? Using what version of OpenWindows? On a Sparc IPC with 12 megabytes of memory OpenWindows 2.0 runs so fast I do not see how it is *possible* to percieve a faster speed. [I.e. it runs at the speeds that correspond to the speed of human perception]. [Colloquially, it updates the screen 'in the blink of an eye']. Now of course on my *8* megabyte IPC there is a difference. >Portability: OpenWin has little or none of the standard utilities of > X-Windows. ... > ... This, to me, is > a valid component of "portability". Consider also that no > Athena toolkit example programs can be demonstrated in OW. I admit that this is a problem with OpenWindows as distributed. But there is nothing keeping you system administrator from installing all of the remaining X libraries along with the one that came with OpenWindows. [I would prefer it if Sun distributed all of the MIT libraries with OpenWindows, but it is by no means a fatal flaw]. We did that here, and I am running several Athena Widget based programs just fine under OpenWindows. (I use xman regularly). Also, I find that the XView library is easier to program than any of the widget sets. (And I am *not* an old Sunview programmer, my first window programming was X based). >Quality: The server core dumps often, both on Sun 3's and Sparcs. Which version of OpenWindows *were* you running! I have *never* had the Sparc OpenWindows 2.0 server crash on me. In fact the only servers I have ever crashed were the Sun386i OpenWindows 1.0 and the MIT X11r4 server on a Sun386i. Yes, that's right, I have had the *MIT* server crash more often than my Sun server. > Dbxtool > constantly crashes with no good reason. Yep, dbxtool is a crock. That's why I use xdbx! > Scrollbars erratically > jump you in the wrong direction and have virtually worthless > visual feedback. Hmm, this sounds like an old version again. The only scrollbars I have ever had significant trouble with lately are the *Motif* scrollbars in Framemaker. Just today I jumped many pages forward in a document when I *thought* I was *dragging* the scrollbar. (I had missed the elevator by a few pixels and it was treating my button press as repeated clicks below the elevator). > Guide is bug ridden and breaks data consistently. I have never used Guide, and I hope I never do. If I am going to use an application generator, I would prefer one that is GUI independent. [I think apps should tailor themselves to the individual user at run time]. > Cursor warping is inconsistent, which is worse that having it > always or never. Is this enough, or do I have to have more? This is not an OpenWindows vs MIT issue - this is a GUI issue. It applies equally well to the OpenLook GUI support that comes with the MIT distribution. [Both olwm and an old version of Xview are on the MIT tapes]. > The MIT port is better. SImple as that. I have failed to find any truly consistant differences. Especially after making sure I had all the libraries. In summary I think my main complaint about OpenWindows is that it doesn't contain all of the libraries by default. And i consider this a *minor* problem with a trivial fix. -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)
jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (DE Robertson james an 740-9172) (06/08/91)
bgeer@javelin.sim.es.com (Bob Geer) writes: >It looks like Openwin's idiosyncratic implimentation of X is >consistent with the otherwise selfish & arrogant attitude reflected in >the content of McNeeley's address -- any standard, as long as it's >Sun's. No more idiosyncratic than Motif's implementation, and possibly more consistent due to the tighter 'look and feel' spec. My experience is that users prefer whatever they are exposed to first - whether it be OpenLook, Motif, or Twm. BTW, to say you prefer X11R4 is to say nothing - the Window Manager gives you the look and feel, not the server. James A Robertson jarober@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu
bill@polygen.uucp (Bill Poitras) (06/12/91)
In article <JON.91Jun6145247@choctaw.b23b.ingr.com> jon@choctaw.b23b.ingr.com (Jon Stone) writes: > Performance: I have used both. The MIT stuff is faster by my perception. > >As for the other xnews bugs you mention, I don't know much about them. Could some one post a summary of xnews/Openwindows gripes. I would be interested in seeing them. The only problem I see with Openwindows is the fact that the X server doesn't do a good job of storing font properties. I ported a large system from X11R3 -> X11R4 -> xnews. The xnews port was a pain because I didn't know that we relied so heavily on the font properties of the server fonts, which xnews doesn't store. Also it doesn't have all the MIT extensions (SHAPE, Multi-Buffering, ...) As far as the speed and size of the server I think some people forget a couple of facts about xnews 1) It runs X. 2) It runs NeWS, which also makes it a nice postscript interpreter 3) It runs SunView applications. For the first person who says "Who cares", I can already say: "Some of my customers" MIT X does only 1. +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+ | Bill Poitras | Polygen Corporation | {princeton bu}!polygen!bill | | (bill) | Waltham, MA USA | - This space for rent - | | | FAX (617)890-8694 | bill@polygen.com | +-----------------+---------------------------+-----------------------------+