kobetitsch@picker.picker.com (harry kobetitsch) (04/26/91)
A heated battle rages on in my work group. I would like some pros and cons of X (including Motif) and Windows 3.0. I would like facts to back up an argument on either side. Thanks in advance! -- Harry Kobetitsch (216)-473-2624 Picker International, Inc. 595 Miner Rd, Highland Heights, OH 44143 (UUCP: ...!uunet!picker!kobetitsch) (Internet: kobetitsch@picker.com)
pete@esv2.biosym.COM (Pete Ware) (04/27/91)
Remember, it's an amazing phenomenon that because someone says
something and it's published, it's suddenly a fact. In other words,
even tough I've extracted this from various trade rags, doesn't mean
it is true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1990 Workstation Vendors (percent of worldwide revenue)
\hfil\vbox{
\begin{tabular}{|l r l|}\hline
Sun & 32.4 & Open Look\\
HP & 21.2 & Motif \\
DEC & 16.2 & Motif \\
Intergraph & 7.0 & Unknown \\
IBM & 6.6 & Motif \\
SGI & 5.8 & Motif (soon)\\
Sony & 2.7 & Motif\\
Next & 1.0 & NextStep\\
Other & 7.2 & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}\hfil
for a total of \$7,257M in revenue.
\footnote{Information Week, 4 March 1991 pg 51}
No numbers are available, but Motif is widely used on
Sun Workstations. And of course, E\&S is Motif based.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
According to recent survers (end of 1990), 62 percent
anticpate using Motif, 18 percent Open Look.
\footnote{Steve Auditor of X Business Group, Freemont.
market research specialist in X.
Interviewed 800 users end of '90. Unix Today, 18
Feb 1991, page 34 ``Crossings''}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of GUI's used in millions:
\footnote{Estimates from Garner Group. Information
Week, 11 March 1991 pp 36.}
\hfil\vbox{
\begin{tabular}{|l r r|}\hline
GUI & 1991 & 1992 \\
Windows & 6.4 & 14 \\
OS/2 PM & 1.6 & 2.5 \\
Mac & 4.7 & 8.5 \\
Motif & & 1 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Ware / Biosym / San Diego CA / (619) 546-5532
email: pete@biosym.compcb@basin04.cacs.usl.edu (Peter C. Bahrs) (04/27/91)
In article <261@picker.picker.com> kobetitsch@picker.picker.com (harry kobetitsch) writes: >A heated battle rages on in my work group. I would like >some pros and cons of X (including Motif) and Windows 3.0. >I would like facts to back up an argument on either side. I assume you mean X running on a UNIX box, not an X emulator or terminal. X: abstact linear memory+, real preemptive multi-tasking+, numerous toolkits from low level (XLib-), higher (Athena-, Motif+, Xviews+) to OO (Interviews?). dbx or xdbx+, most environments have large monitors, can run lots of things under xterm, (I have even run X and Suntools at the same time! but two cursors and little control does not help), distributed network programming in the large++, no tedious config file needed Win3: relys on DOS!-, non-preemptive- (applications have control of processor), codeview(sdk) debugger+, multiple hardware needed to debug-, does not support graphical apps in command.win very well-, ini files needed which are not easy to configure-, numerous development environments: Borland C++ (no classes-), Actor+ and Object graphics, Smalltalk V+, most environments are pc based with <=14" monitors, will be able to run win apps under OS/2 2.0!+ I have done most of my commercial and large project development under windows, namely with sdk and actor. I have done most of my r&d large projects under X. The environment I have preferred for its ease of use and software support is the SparcstationII running motif or xview (ease of use for a scientist, not a lay person). However, I just got a ps/2 model 90 (screamer) and am planning to install windows and then os/2 2.0 windows whenever? it gets here. I very rarely (actually never so far) find anyone who has used a nice X environment to switch back to windows and DOS. Maybe this implies something? /*----------- Thanks in advance... --------------------------------------+ | Peter C. Bahrs | | The USL-NASA Project | | Center For Advanced Computer Studies INET: pcb@swamp.cacs.usl.edu | | 2 Rex Street | | University of Southwestern Louisiana ...!uunet!dalsqnt!gator!pcb | | Lafayette, LA 70504 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------*/
boyd@nu.cs.fsu.edu (Mickey Boyd) (05/04/91)
In article <261@picker.picker.com>, kobetitsch@picker.picker.com (harry kobetitsch) writes: >A heated battle rages on in my work group. I would like >some pros and cons of X (including Motif) and Windows 3.0. >I would like facts to back up an argument on either side. > >Thanks in advance! My main problem with Windows 3.0 is that MS has managed to entirely screw up the intuitive feel that characterizes a good WIMP user interface. They did this so Apple won't sue them :-). An example is the moronic Program manager/file manager differentiation. Simple stuff takes too long in Windows 3.0, and requires endless hunting in the docs (online or physical) to do something the first time. Perhaps this is summed up best by a favorable review of Windows 3.0 which I read in a PC magazine, in which the reviewer's states that Windows is the only window type user interface he has used where he can lean back and put the keyboard on his lap, thus ignoring the mouse!!!! Oh great, very important for a WIMP interface to be so screwed up that hot-keys are easier to use than the standard buttons and menus!!! The only use I can see for Windows (that it is suited for) is the creation of very rigid canned systems for total computer morons who will never add programs or work with files directly (i.e. a front end for a secretary who will only run a few applications, and will never need to copy files around or make directories and stuff). This is all IMHO. A good test is to ask a Windows 3.0 person just how often he uses that DOS PROMPT icon :-). An X window manager is designed to provide a base for virtual terminals (such as xterm) and other applications. Thus, it is not so much a replacement for an OS (like Windows 3.0 is supposed to be) as it is a front end for an OS. Now, Windows 3.0 provides this also, so it could perhaps be said that Windows does more (badly). As far as managing applications go (in terms of both X and Windows), I would say that all X window managers that I have seen are superior to Windows. However, I generally run several different applications at the same time when using X. Since I never do this on a PC, this is more in the apples and oranges department. My one compliment to Windows 3.0 is that it looks nice. Good work by the artists. Again, this is all IMHO. I present my viewpoint as an end user of both systems. -- ---------------------------------+------------------------------------- Mickey R. Boyd | "Kirk to Enterprise. All clear FSU Computer Science | down here. Beam down Technical Support Group | yeoman Rand and a six-pack . ." email: boyd@fsucs.cs.fsu.edu | ---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
wood%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.COM (Bill Wood, SB Pharmaceuticals R&D, 215-270-5163) (05/06/91)
In article <261@picker.picker.com>, kobetitsch@picker.picker.com (harry kobetitsch) writes: >A heated battle rages on in my work group. I would like >some pros and cons of X (including Motif) and Windows 3.0. >I would like facts to back up an argument on either side. > >Thanks in advance! I've been using Motif and Decwindows for several years now, and while I appreciate the flexibility and capability, I have recently become enamored of MS windows 3.0. The other day I was building an application with an MS Windows application building tool which is every bit as flexible and powerful as, say, UIMX. I needed bitmaps of a deck of cards for my application. I was able to grab the card deck that comes in MS Windows Solitaire using the following steps: 1) I brought up the following applications: a) solitaire b) clipboard c) macro recorder d) MS Windows Paint e) SNAGIT, a public domain screen capture program f) a small app that I wrote which dumps the clipboard to a bitmap (.BMP) file 2) I started the macro recorder 3) I selected "deal" from solitaire 4) I used SNAGIT to select a dealt card into the clipboard 5) I pasted the clipboard into MS Paint 6) I cleaned up the edges of the card with the eraser 7) I put the cleaned up card back in the clipboard 8) I dumped the clipboard to a .BMP file 9) I ended the macro recording, then started the macro running in continuous loop mode while I sat back and watched! How hard is this to do in X, especially pasting color bitmaps between apps and automating the whole process? I believe that MS Windows provides a rich, standard environment, and that as it becomes available on faster machines and richer operating systems, the flood of applications for it will be amazing. - Bill wood@smithkline.com
lan_csse@netrix.nac.dec.com (CSSE LAN Test Account) (05/09/91)
In article <9105061352.AA20328@smithkline.com> wood%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.COM (Bill Wood, SB Pharmaceuticals R&D, 215-270-5163) writes: >In article <261@picker.picker.com>, kobetitsch@picker.picker.com (harry >kobetitsch) writes: >>A heated battle rages on in my work group. I would like >>some pros and cons of X (including Motif) and Windows 3.0. >>I would like facts to back up an argument on either side. >> ... > >How hard is this to do in X, especially pasting color bitmaps between apps and >automating the whole process? I believe that MS Windows provides a rich, >standard environment, and that as it becomes available on faster machines and >richer operating systems, the flood of applications for it will be amazing. So when can we expect to see a mswm and a MS3lib.a on some Unix platforms? MS Windows couldn't very well imitate X and Unix, but there's no inherent reason that those who like MS Windows and DOS shouldn't be able to compile and link on Unix, and have it look and feel like their favorite PC. Why all this either-orism? (Aside from the look-and-feel lawsuits, of course. ;-)
cjeffery@optima.UUCP (Clinton Jeffery) (05/09/91)
In article <9105061352.AA20328@smithkline.com> wood%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.COM (Bill Wood, SB Pharmaceuticals R&D, 215-270-5163) writes: >I believe that MS Windows provides a rich, standard >environment, and that as it becomes available on faster machines and >richer operating systems, the flood of applications for it will be amazing. I believe MS Windows provides a rich, NonStandard, Proprietary Money-Grubbing environment, where an attempt has been made to prevent/exclude freeware, public-domain, research, and hobbyist software authors from developing anything that might slow the sale of expensive MS applications. The flood of overpriced, underpowered MS Windows applications is already amazing. Anyone predicting so far into the future as to a time when Windows will run on non *86 architectures and richer operating systems is a True oracle. We have no indication that it will EVER be less than a Proprietary Money-Grubbing environment, no matter what machines and OS's it runs on. Too bad, because aside from the ridiculous memory management (which has violently slowed the "flood" of applications) Windows provides a nice programming interface, as C-based GUI's go. While I am on my soapbox, isn't it ironic that MS rose to stardom on the strength (and low cost) of BASIC -- the software development tool of the people -- and once it got where it is, it has done everything it can to monopolize all software development and sales in the entire micro industry. Whew! If I want to develop widely-used software for PC's, I guess I better go apply there, eh? (Gee, maybe they won't take me after this tirade...)
murray@flatirons.central.sun.COM (Murray Stein [Rocky Mtn. Regional MTS]) (05/09/91)
From xpert-mailer@expo.lcs.mit.edu Wed May 8 18:19:13 1991 From: lan_csse@netrix.nac.dec.com (CSSE LAN Test Account) Organization: Digital Equipment Subject: Re: X11 Windows 3.0 comparisons Newsgroups: comp.windows.x To: xpert@expo.lcs.mit.edu In article <9105061352.AA20328@smithkline.com> wood%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.COM (Bill Wood, SB Pharmaceuticals R&D, 215-270-5163) writes: >In article <261@picker.picker.com>, kobetitsch@picker.picker.com (harry >kobetitsch) writes: >>A heated battle rages on in my work group. I would like >>some pros and cons of X (including Motif) and Windows 3.0. >>I would like facts to back up an argument on either side. >> ... > >How hard is this to do in X, especially pasting color bitmaps between apps and >automating the whole process? I believe that MS Windows provides a rich, >standard environment, and that as it becomes available on faster machines and >richer operating systems, the flood of applications for it will be amazing. So when can we expect to see a mswm and a MS3lib.a on some Unix platforms? MS Windows couldn't very well imitate X and Unix, but there's no inherent reason that those who like MS Windows and DOS shouldn't be able to compile and link on Unix, and have it look and feel like their favorite PC. Why all this either-orism? (Aside from the look-and-feel lawsuits, of course. ;-) Hmmm. I don't think I want to pay still more royalties to Microsoft...