bob@odi.com (Bob Miner) (05/01/91)
Has there been any hint that OSF will be adding a virtual desktop to mwm in the future, as in vtwm, tvtwm and swm? It would seem a sensible thing to do, assuming there aren't any legal complications. Bob Miner bob@odi.com
toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) (05/01/91)
> Has there been any hint that OSF will be adding a virtual desktop > to mwm in the future, as in vtwm, tvtwm and swm? It would seem a > sensible thing to do, assuming there aren't any legal complications. If somebody does this please consider doing it with a seperate virtual root window rather than moving all the windows around ala vtwm and olvwm. IMHO it's the right way to do this and makes panning the desktop MUCH cleaner and faster. I'm somewhat biased, but even the author of vtwm now agrees that the tvtwm approach is the way to do this. Yes, fewer clients break with the vtwm/olwvm approach, but moving the windows around is simply working around a problem rather than trying to solve it. Once again, IMHO. Now let's see, where's my source to mwm... -- (I kid you not)Tom LaStrange toml@Solbourne.COM
nazgul@alfalfa.com (Information Junkie) (05/02/91)
> If somebody does this please consider doing it with a seperate virtual > root window rather than moving all the windows around ala vtwm and olvwm. My only problem with this is that it seems to suck up a large amount of memory.
toml@marvin.Solbourne.COM (Tom LaStrange) (05/02/91)
> > If somebody does this please consider doing it with a seperate virtual > > root window rather than moving all the windows around ala vtwm and olvwm. > > My only problem with this is that it seems to suck up a large amount > of memory. I'm not sure why it would unless backing store is enabled on the virtual root window. The latest patch to tvtwm sets the backing store hint to NotUseful. I did a couple of experiments on my Graphon and found the following memory usage: With one xterm and one xclock tvtwm without the virtual desktop 101310 bytes used tvtwm with the virtual desktop 143228 bytes used I then started one more xterm 157136 bytes used I don't see it as that expensive. -- (I kid you not)Tom LaStrange toml@Solbourne.COM