If you wan't anti-aliasing in any of those above (gitk/emacs come to mind) you'll be doing client side rendering of fonts and copying pixels.
If something was written a long time ago and hasn't changed in this respect, BUT is still widely used... you can't say that "no X client draws like this nor has for 20 years."
RDP has efficiency gains because clients send pixmaps over the wire to be stored on the server, and then send draw calls to display those pixmaps in certain places, composing a display. You can do this with X11 too, but the GTK developers don't want to because using the protocol is hard ;_;
Even the pixelcache uses server-side textures when available.
This is what Xshm does and why everything modern uses it. You get a server-side texture, but mapped into client address space so you can do direct draws and then XCopyArea() into your final location for double-buffering.
But gtk+ isn't really in the position to be able to control everything so precisely all the way down the driver stack to network transparency layers. So unless you connect to our process directly, like the HTML5 broadway backend, there is only so much we can do.
The broadway backend does employ various techniques to reduce the amount of content passed using a sort of rolling hash.
https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/tree/gdk/broadway/broadway...
I expect forthcoming app/display network transparency layers in GNOME's Wayland compositor to employ a similar strategy.
BTW, it is downright funny how just about every Gnome guy i have encountered online seems to come across a pedantic grump. that would not know a joke if it fell on his head...
You seem to be misinformed. Of the applications I mentioned, the main ones (gitk, xterm, emacs, xosview) are not doing that; seen clearly by analysing the X traffic.
Of course, some of these could be built with an optional Qt front-end, in which case I would not be surprised.
So you stated clearly "all" applications (for "20 years") which is provably incorrect; and I home in on this because it's a recurrence of another 'well, you never had it before' argument (that really might be better directed at the decaying state of X11 client toolkits)
X11 isn't perfect, I have no doubt something better can be engineered (especially if it involves those who worked on X11). But people are missing the point that to replace X11 is a different matter from designing a better one. It involves acknowledging those who are quietly and successfully using X11 on a daily basis for the majority of their work and existing applications -- not telling us how wrong we are.