Re: GEM/X

[Chris Herborth <herborth@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com>]

What you wrote:
> What about NeXT ?  X uses by far the most CPU resources, and GEM the least,
> so what about something in between .. like the NeXT GUI?  It could be
> simulated either by adding to GEM, or rewrite GEM to call NeXT-like objects.

NeXTstep would he even worse than a simple X server on an ST or Falcon;
Display PostScript is computationally expensive, and we don't have enough
computrons to spread around.  Have you seen how slow Ghostscript and
Ultrascript (two PostScript emulators) are on a 68k?  *shudder*

I wonder if a virtual desktop for MGR would be possible, and how "slow"
it would be?  MGR is a pretty minimal (ie, fast and not too memory hogging)
graphical environment...  Maybe someone who's actually been using it
(is Howard Chu on this list?) has been doing some work at making it more
attractive to users?

It's a pity Atari decided to put such a brain-dead MMU into the original
ST.  4M isn't enough for all of this and a C compiler, let alone a C++
compiler.  :-(

-- 
----------============_   /\ ========================================----------
Chris Herborth        \`o.0'                   herborth@53iss6.Waterloo.NCR.COM
Information Products  =(___)=
NCR ISD Waterloo         U