Return to BSD News archive
#! rnews 1567 bsd Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!uunet!in1.uu.net!205.137.48.143!news1.agis.net!agis!news.pbi.net!news5.crl.com!nexp.crl.com!usenet From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@FreeBSD.org> Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: X-windows quality Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 00:07:17 -0800 Organization: Walnut Creek CDROM Lines: 18 Message-ID: <32E47935.2781E494@FreeBSD.org> References: <5c13tv$9be@news.istar.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: time.cdrom.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; FreeBSD 3.0-CURRENT i386) To: firesign@istar.ca Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:34016 firesign wrote: > display, and it is setup for a nice little S3 card. So far, I'm > completely non-plussed by the graphic quality of X. I know it does > colour, but the whole thing looks so chunky, almost like an old PC > running ega. Maybe I just need to be weaned of 95/NT/NeXT type stuff, I think you're confusing X with "Window Manager", which is completely decoupled in X. If you want a Win95 appearance, run fvwm95. If you like NeXTStep, run the openstep window manager. There are even WMs which make your desktop look like a Macintosh. If you're using the default (twm) then yes, it looks boxy and gross. Fortunately, almost nobody uses twm now. :-) For more on this subject I recommend a good X book. There's far more detail here than this newsgroup needs to hear. -- - Jordan Hubbard President, FreeBSD Project