Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!leah!bingvaxu!sunybcs!boulder!ncar!ames!amdahl!nsc!voder!wlbr!mh From: mh@wlbr.EATON.COM (Mike Hoegeman) Newsgroups: comp.windows.news Subject: X vs NeWS - was --> is news loosing the battle? Message-ID: <20091@wlbr.EATON.COM> Date: 7 Jul 88 23:28:50 GMT References:<10250002@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM> Reply-To: mh@wlbr.UUCP (0000-Mike Hoegeman) Organization: Eaton IMS, Westlake Village, CA Lines: 76 In article <10250002@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM> diamant@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (John Diamant) writes: >Until now, it was a simple choice: do you want a proprietary system which one >vendor is trying to foist on the world (NeWS) or a multi-vendor, open system, >which has been freely available from the very start (X). > Hmm... I don't know if i would call it foist. I think sun is bending over backwards to accomodate the X fans of the world w/ the merged NeWS/X11 server. I think sun's attitude seems to more "may the best one win". sun's policy on NeWS is pretty much like NFS , if you want a reference source kit you hand over your XXXX amount of dollars and you get it. >NeWS advantages over X: >high power imaging model (2D) using absolute dimensions, rather than pixels >non-rectangular windows >Postscript available Not just available . postscript it is completely and pretty much seamlessly an integral part of the server. the current plans for postscript under X just seem like some weird abortion in comparison. >Toolkits can be interpreted in the server, and thus substituted out from under > the application >mimimal traffic between client and server > >disadvantages of NeWS relative to X: >requires relatively powerful NeWS server -- a NeWS terminal will be more > expensive than an X terminal I don't know if this is so true either. X is no doubt more thrify in resources than NeWS but once you start using those monster X libraries (and you have to to get anywhere with it) I'm not so sure the total resource usage will be in X's favor. NeWS runs quit nicely on Macs and amigas and 386's. I don't really think anybody is going to bother running X or NeWS on anything smaller than those type of machines. > >programming process context switching and partitioning between client and > server is a PAIN for the progammer. Yeah, It's a pain sometimes. but I think It's well worth it just to get the postscript paradigm >programming in Postscript is a pain (of course, Sun provides a C translator > so this isn't that big a problem). I would'nt say that necessarily. In fact I know alot of people who really like postscript. I really did'nt like it much at first but now i think it's great! You really have to USE it for awhile to realize how powerful it is. This is , I think, is one of the major advantages of news over X. the imaging model is just so much more powerful and flexible. Plus it's INTERPRETED!! It's great to go in and whip up a prototype window or user interface gadget by just cranking up a postscript shell and having at it! While on the subject of PostScript , there's the implementation of objects and classes to consider too. This is a real boon when creating user interface gadgets. >The ability to have interpretive toolkits which can be swapped is useful, but >there are other ways to accomplish this in X as well (using dynamic loading, >for instance). >Probably the most significant difference between X and NeWS is the traffic >between client and server. First of all, Scheifler wrote a paper about why It's nice but I don't think anybody really goes for NeWS because of this. I don't. > >> One more note : I tend to think that those companies that >> offer both systems are in a much better position than those >> companies only offering X... How true.. -mike