benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) (12/02/88)
From article <941@riddle.UUCP>, by domo@riddle.UUCP (Dominic Dunlop): > In article <7361@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU > (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >>Why did NeXT use Display Postscript instead of Sun's NeWS? How much of >>a difference is there? Is there any reason to use DP instead of NeWS, >>or is NeXT just trying to be different? It seems like ignoring >>standards is a big part of their business stragegy... > Er. NeWS a standard? Sun would have liked it to be a standard, but, > unlike -- say -- NFS and SPARC, it hasn't caught outside Sun: Your are DEAD WRONG. NeWS has caught on outside of Sun. There are 66+ licensees...obviously some companies out their are interested in NeWS. I really despise ignorance...so I will also mention that NeWS is the basis for Silicon Graphics windows system (that's right...not X11), it also is the basis for Raster Technologies products, it also was available on the Mac before X and on OS/2 before PM...further NeWS is a SUPERSET of Postscript...it understands processes, windows, events, etc. > X issweeping it aside even if, arguably, X isn't addressing quite the same > problem as NeWS. (Hell, corporate deceision makers don't want to be > bothered with little details like that.) I have a healthy respect for X11 but with the exception of the networking it is the same old ten (or more) year old techology ... it is no REAL breakthrough...X is a toy when compared technically with NeWS...(you can emulate X from NeWS...the reverse is not possible) As for X sweeping NeWS aside...wait....System V Releas 4 Unix will contain X11/NeWS ... so lucky Sys5.4 users will be able to have BOTH... running under ONE user interface OPEN LOOK. When we have X and NeWS on the same machine...my money is on people recognizing the sheer technical advantages of NeWS and the weakness and limitations of X/Display Postscript. However, why worry ... System V Release 4 will have a merged X11/NeWS which will allow users to run both types of windows in a harmonious fashion. Hopefully you now understand your statement about NeWS being nowhere but Sun (and the 66+ others) makes even less sense since it will be part of Unix. :-) > > PostScript, on the other hand, is a de-facto standard, and to me, Display Again complete SHEER IGNORANCE. NeWS IS a Postscript *superset* - they send you Adobe's Postscript books so you can learn NeWS!!!!! I routinely display Transcript (another Adobe product) produced Postscript in NeWS' psview which allow you to view postscript files. So you are CORRECT in your own perverse way...Postscript is the de-facto standard...but NeWS not only groks Postscript but does Postscript windows, networking, events, processes, canvases, etc... Adobe DP does not. > PostScript looks to me like an obvious next step (groan), provided that Display Postscript is a subset of NeWS, it depends on the native windows system and has a substantial less features...no dynamically extensible server (since X11 has none)...no variable path windows (like circular, triangular), etceter etcetera etcetera Now for the answer to the original question : I really doubt Job could bring himself to endorse NeWS ... he then couldn't bring himself to endorse X...marketing reasons underlies both decisions... (Jobs is bright at hyping, marketing and organizing and synthesizing ideas) ... Not using X or NeWS doesn't make the machine any less creative and interesting ... > Dominic Dunlop I am sorry for the flame...but next time you post facts ... do a little research first. X/Display Postscript has alot of potential...but quite simply (because NeWS is a superset of DP) X/NeWS has alot more potential. -------------- My opinions are my own...and i type them on a Sun running NeWS :-) and soon it will be running X11/NeWS ... and if I want to run a NeWS window I can do that ... and if I want to run an X11 window I will be able do that to... and if I want to cut and paste from an X window to a NeWS window I will be able to do that ... and if I want Postscript I have a postscript (NeWS) shell and postscript viewer ... and I will have an X toolkit and a NeWS toolkit for development ... and if I want to have X do what NeWS does ...sigh...well then I CAN'T DO THAT. (sorry for being obnoxious... but consider it an education).
davidh@dent.Berkeley.EDU (David S. Harrison) (12/03/88)
(ed. Positive comments about NeWS; Negative comments about X.
Plus the following debatable statements:)
> I have a healthy respect for X11 but with the
> exception of the networking it is the same old ten (or more) year old
> techology ... it is no REAL breakthrough...X is a toy when compared
> technically with NeWS...(you can emulate X from NeWS...the reverse is
> not possible) ...
> ... and if I want to have X do what NeWS
> does ...sigh...well then I CAN'T DO THAT. (sorry for being obnoxious...
> but consider it an education).
I have often heard these opinions stated by NeWS advocates.
Unfortunately, they are not entirely true. In its current
form, NeWS *cannot* fully emulate X. This is because the
NeWS color model *does not* support writable color tables.
Furthermore, there are operations supported by X which
cannot be efficiently emulated under NeWS. The prime example
is stipple filled areas. The Postscript/NeWS display model
does not support writing a certain pattern of bits onto the
display without changing the bits not specified in the pattern.
This can be emulated but the replacement operations are *very*
slow. These two features alone rule out reasonable implementations
of a wide class of color graphics editors under NeWS (including
the one I have developed under X).
Please don't misunderstand: I see many advantages in the NeWS
model. However, the argument is far from one sided. There
are several serious problems with NeWS in its current form. X,
although low-level, addresses many of these problems. That
is precisely the reason why Sun has decided to produce a combined
X11/NeWS server (not just an X11 emulator above NeWS).
David Harrison
UC Berkeley Electronics Research Lab
(davidh@ic.Berkely.EDU, ...!ucbvax!davidh)greid@adobe.com (Glenn Reid) (12/17/88)
In article <2391@ssc-vax.UUCP> benoni@ssc-vax.UUCP (Charles L Ditzel) writes: >> PostScript, on the other hand, is a de-facto standard, and to me, Display >Again complete SHEER IGNORANCE. NeWS IS a Postscript *superset* - >I am sorry for the flame...but next time you post facts ... do a little >research first. X/Display Postscript has alot of potential...but quite >simply (because NeWS is a superset of DP) X/NeWS has alot more potential. Tsk, tsk. He who lives by the, er, sword, dies by it, I suppose. Do you really know anything about Display PostScript? Have you ever looked up the word "superset"? Please be careful what you say out there, folks. There are lots of opinions, and we want to share useful information, not post flames. The Display PostScript's operator set and NeWS are intersecting sets, where Red Book PostScript is roughly the area of intersection. They are completely different implementations, and differ in many other ways, but it is incorrect as well as a trivialization to say that NeWS is a superset of Display PostScript. And also, Display PostScript has nothing to do with X windows, other than the ability to ge integrated into it. The NeXT machine does not run X windows; it draws its windows with Display PostScript. Sigh. Glenn Reid Adobe Systems
ejf@well.UUCP (Erik James Freed) (12/18/88)
I think that what was meant by News being a 'superset' of Display Postscript was that News includes higher level Window manager type abilities. This assumes that other than that they cover the same functionality. (Which I suspect is very debatable.) I hate it when these discussions get unpleasantly personal. Erik Freed ejf@well.uucp ...pacbell!well!ejf
andy@ecrcvax.UUCP (Andrew Dwelly) (12/19/88)
In article <109@adobe.COM> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes: >And also, Display PostScript has nothing to do with X windows, other >than the ability to ge integrated into it. The NeXT machine does not >run X windows; it draws its windows with Display PostScript. Ahh, this is interesting. I just received the "Display Postscript preliminary documentation" (thanks Glenn), which I have so far only had a chance to glance at. What I did notice, however, is that input does not seem to be well supported. I understand, from following various comments in this forum that the reason is that DPS is really only meant for output, and supposed to run -with- a windowing system. So now I'm confused. Users of NeXT and Glenn, would you say DPS is a suitable basis for creating window systems with the associated paraphernalia ? would you claim that it is one component from several, making up a WISIWYG sort of interface? More pointedly, how does DPS support interaction between the cursor and "interface objects" ? Andy Andrew Dwelly E.C.R.C. UUCP: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!andy ArabellaStrasse 17 or pyramid!ecrcvax!andy D-8000 Muenchen 81, West Germany UUCP Domain: andy@ecrcvax.UUCP [Bump, Crash ...... Listen; who swears ? Christopher Robin has fallen down stairs.]