Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!ogccse!blake!milton!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!alberta!aunro!atha!auvax.uucp!lyndon
From: lyndon@auvax.uucp (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Newsgroups: comp.terminals
Subject: Re: AT&T 630 X ?
Keywords: X cartridge?
Message-ID: <1112@aurora.AthabascaU.CA>
Date: 20 Sep 89 06:36:46 GMT
References: <9340@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <11050@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Sender: news@cs.AthabascaU.CA
Lines: 32

gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes:

>I've previously given some thought to what it would take to
>support X on a 630.  The most glaring problem is that the 630
>does not provide an Ethernet connection.  You could follow the lead
>of one X terminal vendor (Graph-On?) and provide a host X server
>that talks with the 630 over its usual serial-line connection.

Gak! At 4800 baud effective throughput? No thanks.

>I wonder why, though, because X seems to me a step backward.
>630-specific programs are generally much more responsive and
>easier to produce in the first place.

They also require 630 specific terminals. The 630 on my disk costs
as much (probably more) than the VAXstation 2000 sitting beside it.
The 630 is a nice terminal, but there is absolutely no way I can
cost justify them when, for less money, I can buy an "X terminal"
that also happens to run Unix.

>The main benefit of a
>630-X would seem to be if you happen to have 630s for other
>reasons and want to tap into applications that ONLY support X.

No, the main benefit would be the ability to talk to the other half
of our campus network that runs BSD. X server/client source is
free; Source to layers, the 630 developers kit, etc., most definately
is not. Given the relative costs, X wins by miles.
Lyndon Nerenberg  VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University
  {alberta,decwrl,lsuc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA
     "I think every man should have a wife.  You can't blame
         everything on the government."  -- Jed Clampett