Re: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Lesiecki Nicholas
Hah! you should post that to slashdot. It will start WWIII. Cheers, Nick --- "Randolph S. Kahle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I run Linux on my workstation. On top of Linux I run vmware and Windows > 2000. > > Eclipse runs faster on Windows2000 in vmware than "natively" in Linux. > > Strange...

Re: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Warner Onstine
On Friday, November 1, 2002, at 02:14 PM, Randolph S. Kahle wrote: I run Linux on my workstation. On top of Linux I run vmware and Windows 2000. Eclipse runs faster on Windows2000 in vmware than "natively" in Linux. Strange... I think the native SWT widgets make the difference. Are the SWT w

RE: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Rick Hightower
I double dog dare you. -Original Message- From: Lesiecki Nicholas [mailto:ndlesiecki@;yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 2:25 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows Hah! you should post that to slashdot. It will start WWIII. Cheers

Re: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Simon Ritchie
Warner Onstine wrote: Aren't all SWT widgets native (no matter the platform)? This was my impression initially, especially in respect to why it took so long to port it to OS X. -warner Yes, they are. SWT consists of some standard java code and also some JNI native code. The native code is w

Re: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Randolph S. Kahle
When is the next meeting? I would *love* to hear more about SWT and any eclipse plug-in development. Randy On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 16:00, Simon Ritchie wrote: > Warner Onstine wrote: > > > > > Aren't all SWT widgets native (no matter the platform)? This was my > > impression initially, especial

RE: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Rick Hightower
+1 for SWT -Original Message- From: Simon Ritchie [mailto:simon.ritchie@;amo.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows Warner Onstine wrote: > > Aren't all SWT widgets native (no matter t

RE: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread William H. Mitchell
Something on SWT would be great! - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Simon Ritchie
Randolph S. Kahle wrote: When is the next meeting? The next meeting is Tuesday, November 12th Simon. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Tim Colson
+1 on SWT preso, especially if there was some info on using it standalone and/or deployed using java web start, and/or on a Jeode JVM. > Due to the lack of volunteers to present for the next meeting Well, thinking in a vaguely similar vein, the Thinlet.com stuff builds widgets entirely with AWT (

RE: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Mike Oliver
+2 for SWT At 03:59 PM 11/1/2002 -0700, you wrote: +1 for SWT -Original Message- From: Simon Ritchie [mailto:simon.ritchie@;amo.com] Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows Warner Onstine wrote

RE: [jug-discussion] Eclipse is better on Windows

2002-11-01 Thread Lesiecki Nicholas
+1 From Me too... --- Rick Hightower <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 for SWT > > -Original Message- > From: Simon Ritchie [mailto:simon.ritchie@;amo.com] > Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:00 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [jug-discussion] E