nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) (07/02/90)
From: goodearl@world.std.com (Robert D Goodearl)
:I have not seen X windows development tools, but from what I know of
:the spec and with what I've heard from people who are using X, I
:understand that it is at least comperably complex.
This hasn't been my experience. If you just use Xlib by itself
it can be somewhat daunting, but this is why lots of people
have created layers and toolsets on top of Xlib. And of course
THAT was the thrust of my entire posting... given the complexity
of Windows why haven't we seen similar initiatives with Windows?
Actor is the only one I know of and a.) it's expensive, and
b.) It apparently requires a whole different programming
language. It appears that there has been a lot more work done
to develop tools and ease-of-programming accessories and layers
for X despite the fact that there would appear to be a lot fewer
people out there who are actually *using* X. Why is this?
---Peter
PS---
:Get a copy of Actor on the educational discount.
What does this mean??? Lie to them and say, "Oh, yeah, I'm a
sophomore at, uh, Apollo U., yeah, that's it, Apollo University...
we're the...uh...eastern campus of the...ah...University of Hewlett
Packard...yeah...UHP, that's the ticket, we got our own fight song
and everything... We're...ah...building a new "stadium" in Ft.
Collins, Colorado...yeah...you should see our cheerleaders...they're
led by...ah...Christie Brinkley...yeah...and Morgan Fairchild... Did
I say I was a sophomore? I meant a senior, and...ah...captain of the
football team...and..."
tonyb@olivej.olivetti.com (Anthony M. Brich) (07/04/90)
In article <1990Jun30.000706.3548@world.std.com> goodearl@world.std.com (Robert D Goodearl) writes: >.... I have become increasingly frustrated, in the month since >the release of windows, as this news group seems to degenerate into a >complaint line. Instead, I'd like to see this newsgroup share ideas on >how to make more effective use of Windows, and how to make it more powerful. >Some of that is happening already -- lets expand on that. Hear, hear! (Or "read, read!", as the case may be ...) Thank you for so succinctly critiquing the quality of the debate in this newsgroup. I am a very new reader of this group, an enthusiastic end-user (some in this group would probably think "dilettante", my technical knowledge of Windows being virtually non-existent), and I had hoped to find more information about working WITH Windows, as opposed to too- lengthy debates about its virtues/weaknesses vis-a-vis other GUI environments. For those knowledgeable in other GUI environments, like the fellow who recently posted a mouse wish-list, it would be more helpful to understand what functionality can be added to future Windows. If the intent of the malcontents is to get me to switch, I am not persuaded. (If I were switching from Windows, I wouldn't be reading this newsgroup!) And I cannot advise my client to move from a relatively successful GUI implementation which runs quite well on 386-based systems, since Windows in fact addresses most of the needs of my client: it runs more or less well on 386-based PCs, accomodates most of the client's installed software, provides GUI to people who really need it, etc. To switch to DesqView or XWindows or any other Windowsing environment would require enormous reconfiguration, analysis, headaches, etc. Windows fits right in. The Windows commentary in this newsgroup as in other media (like a recent San Jose Mercury News business section piece) describes Windows 3.0 as deficient because it requires substantial, but nowadays common, hardware and memory, as if it is to be faulted because it cannot deliver beautiful color, multi-tasking, and 386 speed to 8086 and 8088 PCs --- and do all that cheaply! Sheesh. Similarly, the debate in this newsgroup suggests that Windows should transcend its DOS foundation, that Microsoft should transcend capitalist principle, that sophisticated programming tools should be cheap and easy to use .... sounds a little dreamy to me! I mean, I want those things too, but pretty much figure that I'll have to be part of the process of getting there, not just the lucky recipient. Oh, sorry this got so long winded. It really was intended only as a thankyou. Regards to all, Tony Brich.