Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!hplabs!hpda!hp-sde!hpfcdc!hpfclp!diamant
From: diamant@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM (John Diamant)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: X vs NeWS - was --> is news loosing the battle?
Message-ID: <10250003@hpfclp.SDE.HP.COM>
Date: 12 Jul 88 04:18:07 GMT
References: <20091@wlbr.EATON.COM>
Organization: HP SDE, Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 75

> 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.

Yes, the X11/NeWS server should satisfy everyone, but take a look at the
history behind it.  Also my comment was directed at the situation prior to
having the X11/NeWS server.  They really didn't have a lot of choice in the
matter.  Customers were demanding X for interoperability and the only way
to get some of the vendors to look at NeWS was to provide it on the AT&T
tape in the X11/NeWS merge (due to the large source licensing fee).  Until it
was clear that X11 was here to stay, Sun kept trying to make NeWS the standard
and kill X.  Only when it was clear that it wasn't going to work, did they join
the bandwagon.

> 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.  

Yes, that is true now.  However, it is virtually impossible to implement either
NFS or NeWS without the reference source.

> >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.

Maybe you mean "aberration."  Anyway, you're right that Postscript integration
in NeWS is superior to the Postscript on X work.  I didn't mean to imply that
it wasn't.  My separation of the imaging model from Postscript availability
attempted to suggest that, but apparently I failed.

> >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.

I believe I have seen X product announcements for X on an IBM PC (8088).  I'm
pretty sure I've seen recommended configurations as low as 286 at least.  I'm
thinking in terms of dedicated X or NeWS terminals.  The problem with NeWS
terminals is that someone might try to run large portions of their program
in the terminal, and it won't be able to handle it.  It could probably handle
reasonable client/server mixes, but there is nothing to prevent a NeWS program
from attempting to run almost entirely in the server, which I'm sure would
fail miserably on a NeWS terminal.

> >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

Only if it saves you in software development cost elsewhere.  If it makes
developing the software harder, I don't think it's worth 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.

Yes, that's true.  Toolkits (on X) are object oriented too, of course.


John Diamant
Software Development Environments
Hewlett-Packard Co.		ARPA Internet: diamant@hpfclp.sde.hp.com
Fort Collins, CO		UUCP:  {hplabs,hpfcla}!hpfclp!diamant