Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!rws From: rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: Re^2: Gadgets in Motif Message-ID: <8908181200.AA07368@expire.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 18 Aug 89 12:00:56 GMT References: <122257@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> Sender: daemon@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 30 It has always been very difficult for me to understand the reasons behind making each interactive element of the interface a server level resource, when it should simply be regions of the screen defining interactive elements. The argument is hardly as trivial as you make it sound. There are lots of potential reasons on both sides of this issue. I'm sure the Amiga is a nice system, but it isn't X, and the same arguments don't necessarily apply. In the X world, there are issues like having elements with different Visuals, different depths, different colormaps. There are issues like establishing non-conflicing passive grabs. There are issues like avoiding duplicating lots of complicated server machinery on the client side. The drain of the performance of the Server has been clearly shown with early widget programs. Yes, although it's mostly been shown on early server implementations. The performance drain has been demonstrated most clearly, I think, with menus that have each item as a separate window. I'm happy to agree that's a bad design, but I wouldn't want to blindly extrapolate from that to the conclusion that no windows is good windows. I'm not saying gadgets are a bad idea, but they bring on their own set of problems. How has it happened that so many intelligent people have assumed that windows are a cheap resource that can be used freely? How has it happened that so many intelligent people have assumed that windows can't be made a whole lot cheaper? R4, here we come ...