Re: GEM/X

[Julian Reschke <reschke@GOEDEL.UNI-MUENSTER.DE>]

> 
> 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?

MGR should work fine with BigScreen, my virtual screen manager (version >= 2.0
are commercial).

> 
> 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.  :-(
> 
You can buy memory expansion boards with up to 12MB. But I think a TT
or Falcon would make more sense.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------
Julian F. Reschke, Hensenstr. 142, D-48161 Muenster
 eMail: reschke@math.uni-muenster.de jr@ms.maus.de
___________________________________________________