nanogui: re:
Subject:
RE:
From:
Alexander Peuchert ####@####.####
Date:
12 May 1999 07:24:18 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.GSO.4.02.9905120909550.29299-100000@rumburak>
Hi Greg,
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Greg Haerr wrote:
> I agree that the window mgr should be modular, but if you want different window
> managers, you might as well use X. Actually, although it was a good idea,
> the fact that X's design allowed for so much flexibility with differing looks and feels
> contributed to Microsoft's taking over with their faster, more consistent gui...
No, not what I meant. I think, there is a need for at least two different
windowmanagers. One for a large display, like 640x480. Normal activities
there, like title-bars, overlaping windows, ...
And one for small displays. Just one window filling the complete screen,
plus a taskbar. This is a must for PDAs and embedded devices. or would you
like to click on a 4x4 point small close button?
>
> The first version of nanoX that I write will definitely have some built-in window
> management, in order to keep it small. In my opinion, *all* of nanoX should be
> kept small, so that it can be used where X can't. Otherwise, why not just use X?
Me too. That's why nano-X is needed. For bigger installations, X is
already there. But as with INTEL and M$, the requirements are getting
higher year by year. GTK and GNOME or KDE, for example, need more
resources. So, I see nano-x as a window system for small or out-dated
computers.
If I project that in to the future, in two years, the standard desktop
computer will be a Pentium 5 with about 512 MB. And the PDAs and embedded
thingies will have the speed of the computers today. So, at that time,
nano-x will still have to be small, but in other dimensions ...
>
> Greg
>
- alex
Alexander Peuchert
####@####.####
http://www.peuchert.de ( not very interesting yet ;-) )
