On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 03:18:39PM -0400, AragonX wrote:Windows XP has virtual desktops (not as fully customizable as most X-window managers, but good enough).
[...]
Now here is where we see eye to eye. Somewhat...[...]
X has been disappointing to me. I still have to use Windows because I
can't get my games on X.
Well, it all depends on what you're doing with your machine(s). In my eyes, Windows is way behind X. Why? Because I care less about speed, but quite a lot about the fact that you can use remote displays with almost no effort at all - and that I've been able to so for years. That's somethng MS still doesn't offer an easy, out-of-the-box solution for. Same goes for virtual desktops - a concept, I sorely niss on the Win00 box I have to use at work. It's just not all balck-and-white... :-}
Cheerio,
Thomas
You have to get the Microsoft XP power toy for multi-desks.
Windows XP Pro also has "Remote Desktop", built in ready to go right out of the box.
It makes X-windows look like crap in comparison.
It is FAST, even over high latency , low bandwidth connections.
It has exported sound and the connecting client can share his disks (if he wants to ) with the server.
The only downside I have seen is that it is not true multi-user, it only allows one desktop user to
be active at a time (whether remote OR local). I guess that Terminal server is based on the same
thing as Remote-Desktop, and it is true multi-user, but it is very expensive when compared with *FREE*
-Ben.
-- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
