From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Feb 27 15:29:11 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA20673 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 15:29:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from covina.lightside.com (covina.lightside.com [198.81.209.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id PAA20664 for ; Tue, 27 Feb 1996 15:29:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by covina.lightside.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #6) id m0trYpJ-0009Z0C; Tue, 27 Feb 96 15:29 PST Date: Tue, 27 Feb 1996 15:28:52 -0800 (PST) From: Jake Hamby To: Narvi cc: John Fieber , hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: RE: Win32 (was:Re: Go SCSI! Big improvement...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Tue, 27 Feb 1996, Narvi wrote: > Have you ever actually tried the windows sound control panel? Ever tried > it with having only the PC speaker? (Assuming you knew where to look and > got the sound driver for the PC speaker). The Windows Sound control panel works great, what are you complaining about??? If you do have a sound card, or the PC speaker driver, then you can associate many events with .WAV sounds, if you don't, then what do you expect? BTW, Windows NT explicitly does NOT support the PC speaker for digitized sound output because it is very CPU intensive and requires "real-time" programming to twiddle the bits (and doesn't sound very good, to boot). If you notice in Windows 3.1 with the PC speaker driver, the mouse will seize up while its playing the sounds.. So the moral is BUY A SOUND CARD (that applies for any operating system, not just Windows).. > Shut up! Windows was not the thing to start unified printing! Apple did > it much earlier! And talking about GDI - from where the hell comes the > thact that the same thing, using the same fonts, the same layout prints > out a bit different on just slightly different printers (just +- some > lines per some pages)? And once more the same question - have you tried > it all out? Yes, I know it sounds rude - more ruder all the time - but > the picture isn't just that beautiful... :( Yes you are sounding a little bit rude, but that's okay.. Sure the Mac did it first, the Mac popularized a lot of GUI ideas that Windows stole, but the Mac stole them from Xerox PARC, so what's your point? My argument was that Unix is missing these things, and Windows is a good example of what we should be shooting for in terms of GUI features. As for printing, with the Mac you still have to have a Postscript printer (with few exceptions like their Inkjet), it doesn't support PCL like Windows does (or Unix with Ghostscript as a filter). And thanks to Windows using GDI calls for printing (and the Mac using Quickdraw) you can get Print and Print Preview functionality with remarkably few lines of code (especially using MFC/C++ in Windows) because you're basically "drawing to the printer". > For example, take the time and read the notes on differernces about the > printing code on Win31/Win32. Okay printing is a bit simpler under Win32, but it is simplest of all when you use the MFC/C++ framework. What is your point, exactly? > > I agree, 110%! Come to think of it, the ONLY programs I've seen with a > > decent GUI (that are available on more than one vendor's flavor of Unix) > > are Netscape, and MAYBE Emacs. That is if you don't count WINE, WABI, > > TWIN, and Softwindows (evil grin!) ;-) > > Then you have really seen only a few.... :) > > Grumpy Sander Okay, I'm sure I missed some.. But give me some examples of really good (not just adequate) Unix GUI programs. I mean a program where you don't have to consult the Man page to learn how to use it..ever! Did those programs use Motif, Tcl/Tk, or something else? ---Jake