Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!pandora.pix.com!stripes
From: stripes@pix.com (Josh Osborne)
Subject: Re: Motif for 386BSD
Message-ID: <Bury0x.Bz6@pix.com>
Keywords: Motif 386BSD
Sender: news@pix.com (The News Subsystem)
Nntp-Posting-Host: pandora.pix.com
Organization: Pix Technologies -- The company with no adult supervision
References: <1992Sep17.044553.1407@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <Buq358.4up@pix.com> <1992Sep17.174014.11673@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 1992 12:43:43 GMT
Lines: 63
In article <1992Sep17.174014.11673@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>>[I wrote this part]
>>Last I looked XView didn't draw *any* ovals, it used a font with diffrent sized
>>button parts pre-drawn in it. This (1) is faster, and (2) look better then
>>the X rendered ovals at small sizes.
>
>I hate to disagree, but... the 30 or so AT&T 750CX (Actually NCR) terminals
>we have here are terrible at drawing the menu buttons and buttons used by
>OpenLook, and the "OpenLook" oval to me.
There are 2 things that could cause this (1) you are mistaking OLIT programs
for XView (AT&T wrote OLIT, Sun wrote XView, Sun ships both), OLIT does
seem to draw ovals, or (2) your xterminals don't have the proper OPEN LOOK
glyph fonts installed and are either translating font formats slowly, or
forcing OLGX (the XView graphics lib) to fall back on drawing ovals.
>I don't know if your running nothing but monochrome systems where you're at,
>but the "color-3D" for OpenLook on a color terminal are *not* using fonts,
>which only support two different colors (FG and BG) rather than multiple
>colors for "shadows" on the buttons.
Take a look at the XView glyph fonts (I think that's them), all the 3D
OLGX glyphs are drawn with 2 or 3 diffrent charactors.
>If I go to the "2D look", I get better performance, but then the window
>decorations look like hell compared to Motif (which is actually quite pretty,
>if much slower than the "2D look" OpenLook).
(as an aside, I like the 2D look on a mono system better then the 2.5D look
on a mono system, I do like the 2.5D look on a color system, but sometimes
I don't use it because it seems to need more space to look "good" then the
2D look)
>Just running Sun's "filemanager" is an effort requiring patience. The
>draws are simply *abominably slow*.
>
>If it isn't really drawing ovals (I believe it is, from running a tap on
>the data stream to and from the X server), then all that means is that
>that's not the problem; not that there isn't a problem, or that color OpenLook
>doesn't suck on an X terminal. Even if I've misidentified the problem, that
>won't make OpenLook not suck on everything but a local display.
I have used OPEN LOOK on X terminals (Pix does lots of work messing with
X terminal X servers, so I use X terminals more offen then workstations,
and in fact normally only use workstations when I am cross-debuging my
X terminal...), and it doesn't suck. Mabie your X terminals just suck :-)
>This is why all the fuss about Motif on 386BSD.
I understand, I just like OPEN LOOK better, so I wish someone would fuss
about it instead...
(PS when I said OLGX might be falling back to drawing arcs on it's own,
I don't know that it can, last time I looked inside OLGX (XView 2, I think)
there were comments about them wanting OLGX to be able to do it, I don't
know if it can... also it may be a scale thing, you may not have the
glyphs in the right size, so they get scaled...)
--
stripes@pix.com "Security for Unix is like
Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The Multitasking for MS-DOS"
"The dyslexic porgramer" - Kevin Lockwood
We all agree on the necessity of compromise. We just can't agree on
when it's necessary to compromise. - Larry Wall