meth@eowyn.UUCP (11/23/89)
There have been many questions on the net concerning the AT&T Xt based OPEN LOOK 2.0 offering. We are two developers on the AT&T team and here are some answers to questions. Question 1: `Folks at the UI booth at Unix Expo last week were tossing around the term "flattened widgets" and describing that feature of the AT&T Open Look widget set, the version 2.0 to be available in 1/90, as widgets using less run-time storage than standard pre-R4 widgets or gadgets. Does anyone have technical details on these "flattened widgets"? ' Answer 1: FLATTENED WIDGETS VS GADGETS VS WIDGETS ======================================= AT&T, like many others have recognized that widgets as well as gadgets are memory intensive. Although it is widely accepted that widgets are 100% more memory intensive in the server process than gadgets, gadgets do only marginally better on the client side (Up to 50%). The reason for this is directly related to implementation details of the intrinsics and not indigenous to object oriented technology. The flattened widgets that will be part of the OPEN LOOK 2.0 release allows us to realize further savings in the client process. (The note below, from our flattened widget implementor, gives some sense of the savings). WHAT ABOUT X11R4? ================= It should be noted that there has been much talk on the net about the new X11R4 server and the significant memory reductions that it will bring for us. X11R4 will provide significant memory reductions for widgets and gadgets. These memory reductions apply to the server process. The flattenedwidgets provide memory reductions on the client side. NOTE FROM FLATTENED WIDGET DEVELOPER ==================================== `In AT&T's OPEN LOOK toolkit (Xol 2.0) "flattened widgets" are for real. If you've ever used the file manager you'll immediately notice the performance improvements. For example in 1.0, if the file manager was displaying a large directory (> 50 files), it took about 10 seconds for the file manager to redisplay. With flattened widgets, the redisplay time is almost instantaneous. (This test was run using the same server on a 6 meg box.) Here's a ballpark estimate of the memory savings for a typical exclusive setting with 6 choices instantiated with flattened widgets: Savings over Widgets Savings over Gadgets -------------------- -------------------- 80% 50% These values are based on our 1.0 toolkit, which was based on R2 Intinsics and R2 XLib. After completing the 2.0 implementation, I haven't had a chance to rework them for our 2.0 toolkit, though I suspect them to be slightly less for the widgets and about the same for the gadgets.' Question 2: `Anyone know the status of the AT&T offering for Open Look based on the Xt Toolkit?' Answer 2: "The AT&T OPEN LOOK GUI X Toolkit" (Source for 2.0) will be Generally Available early first quarter 1990. Sun will support AT&T's Xt toolkit for SunOS early 2nd quarter 1990. The OPEN LOOK 1.0 product has been available since April, 89 for AT&T hardware. For more information about the product, please contact : Joanne Newbauer at (201)-829-8959. Marcel Meth 201-522-5111 Garry Johnson 201-522-6550 AT&T Bell Laboratories attunix!meth AT&T Bell Laboratories attunix!gfj Rm 4-222 Rm 5-217 190 River Rd 190 River Rd Summit, NJ 07901 Summit, NJ 07901
vonn@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu (Vonn Marsch) (11/28/89)
What, pray tell, is a "gadget"? (Or, for that matter, a "flattened" widget?) (BTW: We're running out of precious meta-syntactical nouns, folks. Can we at least agree to hold "thingamajig" in reserve?) P.S.: Code, OpenLook Xt developers, code like the wind ... I don't want to send 1000 clams + royalties to the "Open" Softare Foundation. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= :-):-( || Vonn Marsch || ( vonn@entropy.ms.washington.edu ) |||||||| )-:(-: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
harden@ICS.COM (Aub Harden) (11/29/89)
In article <2412@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu>, vonn@uw-entropy.ms.washington.edu (Vonn Marsch) writes: > P.S.: Code, OpenLook Xt developers, code like the wind ... I don't want to > send 1000 clams + royalties to the "Open" Softare Foundation. $1000 is a fee for the source license- available to anyone. You decide whether or not that's expensive. The only time you have to pay royalties to OSF is if you copy the libraries or the window manager. Applications built using the toolkit (and UIL) are royalty-free. There is no run-time license for Motif :-) BTW, I believe that AT&T is charging $1000 for Xt+ source. I don't know what their licensing policy is... -Aub Harden harden@ics.com *********************************************************************** * * * Integrated Computer Solutions, Inc. | Everything you wanted to * * 163 Harvard Street | know about X but were * * Cambridge, MA 02139 | afraid to ask... * * * * voice: 617/547-0510 fax: 617/547-0758 e-mail: info@ics.com * ***********************************************************************