4 ms·

X was 1984. X11 was 1987. Twelve years later in 1999, it worked just fine.

by wnoise 6y ago

coliveira 6y ago
Even before that. I remember installing X11 on PCs in 1995. And it worked much earlier than that on UNIX workstations.
forgotpwd16 6y ago
Then again, was there even an alternative back then?
deckard1 6y ago
to give you an idea of 1999, I was running Quake 3 on Linux with official Nvidia Riva TNT support and X11. X11 also ran fine in 1995. Granted, I think fvwm2 was probably state of the art for window managers at the time. From '95 to almost '97 or '98 I stuck pretty much in 80x25 or 80x40 text console. Not because X11 didn't work, but more so because xterm really sucked and the only apps you would use in X11 anyway were Netscape, Gimp or xv (image viewer). Gtk+ also did not exist, so everything was ugly Motif or Tcl/Tk. Oh, and... there was always talk of replacing X11. Even in the '90s. People have been talking about replacing X11 nearly as long as X11 has been around, sadly.
- donio 6y ago
  1995 the state of the art WM was probably GWM which was fully programmable in a Lisp dialect. You could even draw your window decorations in Lisp using various primitives. It was never widely used though.
eikenberry 6y ago
Sorry, I meant X. Wrote X11 out of habit. But X11 is a version of X, so I still think the relevant date is 1984 and in 1996 I was still writing modelines in my X conf file... and at least with Wayland you don't have to worry about a misconfiguration frying your monitor.
- ori_b 6y ago
  Wayland (and X11, and any other modern display system) will absolutely fry non-multisync monitors. Those were common in 1996. Hardware has just improved enough that we don't need to care. This isn't wayland vs X11. X11 is terrible for other reasons, but let's not give wayland credit for hardware improvement.
- wnoise 6y ago
  As another comment notes this is more due to EDID and multisync monitors: hardware and protocol improvements in consumer electronics. X was actually okay in 1996 on the proprietary Unixes with their proprietary graphics card and proprietary monitors. (At least on HPUX, Solaris, and Irix). Linux and the *BSDs had some catching up to do primarily in hardware support and autoconfiguration. But they did so quite rapidly.

X was 1984. X11 was 1987. Twelve years later in 1999, it worked just fine.

by wnoise 6y ago

X was 1984. X11 was 1987. Twelve years later in 1999, it worked just fine.

coliveira 6y ago

Even before that. I remember installing X11 on PCs in 1995. And it worked much earlier than that on UNIX workstations.

forgotpwd16 6y ago

Then again, was there even an alternative back then?

deckard1 6y ago

to give you an idea of 1999, I was running Quake 3 on Linux with official Nvidia Riva TNT support and X11. X11 also ran fine in 1995. Granted, I think fvwm2 was probably state of the art for window managers at the time. From '95 to almost '97 or '98 I stuck pretty much in 80x25 or 80x40 text console. Not because X11 didn't work, but more so because xterm really sucked and the only apps you would use in X11 anyway were Netscape, Gimp or xv (image viewer). Gtk+ also did not exist, so everything was ugly Motif or Tcl/Tk. Oh, and... there was always talk of replacing X11. Even in the '90s. People have been talking about replacing X11 nearly as long as X11 has been around, sadly.

donio 6y ago
1995 the state of the art WM was probably GWM which was fully programmable in a Lisp dialect. You could even draw your window decorations in Lisp using various primitives. It was never widely used though.

eikenberry 6y ago

Sorry, I meant X. Wrote X11 out of habit. But X11 is a version of X, so I still think the relevant date is 1984 and in 1996 I was still writing modelines in my X conf file... and at least with Wayland you don't have to worry about a misconfiguration frying your monitor.

ori_b 6y ago
Wayland (and X11, and any other modern display system) will absolutely fry non-multisync monitors. Those were common in 1996. Hardware has just improved enough that we don't need to care. This isn't wayland vs X11. X11 is terrible for other reasons, but let's not give wayland credit for hardware improvement.
wnoise 6y ago
As another comment notes this is more due to EDID and multisync monitors: hardware and protocol improvements in consumer electronics. X was actually okay in 1996 on the proprietary Unixes with their proprietary graphics card and proprietary monitors. (At least on HPUX, Solaris, and Irix). Linux and the *BSDs had some catching up to do primarily in hardware support and autoconfiguration. But they did so quite rapidly.