Windows layer storage/transmission.

Lee Douglas LeeDouglas "at" pellis.com
Wed, 02 Jan 2002 19:05:12 +0000


Hi folks! I kept the following in my out box for 4+ hours before sending. I 
really don't want to get into a flaming contest, but I'm one of what I 
suspect are many who get awfully tired of the entirely gratuitous 
continuing slaps at Windows and Windows users. They really don't contribute 
anything to the discourse. Now, having spent my little bit of bandwidth, 
I'll drop back into the background.

Cheers and Happy Holidays!


Here, Here!

Here's my New Year's suggestion (not resolution). How about if all of those 
folks who /really/ don't like Windows get together and form another news 
group / list where they can chant things like "windose" and M$, and the 
like all day long - thereby leaving the rest of us (the great unwashed?) to 
get on with our lives? Like it or not, Windows is a fact of life, makes 
life lots easier for a lot of people, and mostly works as advertised. The 
continuing drumbeat of hate for Windows suggests to me that there may 
be  certain poverty in the lives of those who profess to hate it. If it's 
so bad, why don't you develop / promote a competitor and win in the 
marketplace?



At 11:43 AM 1/2/2002 +0200, you wrote:
>Wow, do you program with the those filthy fingers. "If you don't have
>something nice to say to don't say nothing at all".
>
>Now, "A Friend" The idea the you suggested is already implemented in Citrix,
>and it would be hell to implement on any OS "Crapy" or not.
>
>-Shay Erlichmen.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ScanMan [mailto:scanman "at" scanman.mine.nu]
>Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 11:03 AM
>To: VNC list
>Subject: Re: Windows layer storage/transmission.
>
>
>Unfortunately, this wouldn't work on crap OS's like Windose.
>
>On Wed, 2002-01-02 at 02:19, A friend wrote:
> > Don't know if this item has come up yet, but it seems to me that only
> > one graphical buffer is kept and transmitted by VNC. Since most (if
> > not all) OSses are window based, is it not more efficient to keep (and
> > send) a separate buffer for each window that is opened. So when
> > switching, closing or moving a window the unterlying data is still
> > available at client level in memory, and does not have to be
> > re-transmitted. This will cost some extra memory and initial loading
> > may take a little longer, but I think that it will make a significant
> > improvement on slow connections where more than one window is used.
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, mail majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com with the line:
>'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also:
>http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, mail majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com with the line:
>'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY
>See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, mail majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com with the line:
'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------