🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <13456@cbmvax.commodore.com> daveh@cbmvax (Dave Haynie) writes:
>In article <1990Jul25.224140.24184@cbnewsm.att.com> nsw@cbnewsm.att.com (Neil Weinstock) writes:
>>In article <6091@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>>>I didn't say graphics were a bug. I said X was a bug. Not only is it big, but
>>>it's primitive. ALL the windows are SIMPLEREFRESH!

NOT TRUE!

>
>>I've been educating myself about Xlib lately, and this seems like one of the
>>really grossest things in X.  I wonder how many applications know how to
>>properly update just the damaged areas?
>>Here's to SMARTREFRESH,
>
>Well, that flaw in X is certainly a flaw.  Its also a flaw in the Macintosh
>windowing system, which also handles only SIMPLEREFRESH windows (unless they
>have fixed that recently).  Something that needs to be updated in both of
>these systems.
>
Most X implementations do support SMARTREFRESH like capabilities.
MIT only says you can't depend on it being there if you want your
product to be completely transportable to all other servers.

However if your applications depend on COLOR or other capabilities
of X11 that are not universally available on all machines (another one
is speed) then you have the same problem.

SMARTREFRESH is a very nice feature and applications may depend on it.
All they need to do is say so in the sales literature so that the
customer makes sure their Xterminals/workstations have the required
set of features to support that application.

Dale Luck
GfxBase
(moving back to California this weekend)