Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!visdc!jiii
From: jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.i386
Subject: Re: How to choose a new 386 UNIX PC...
Message-ID: <645@visdc.UUCP>
Date: 14 Sep 89 22:18:45 GMT
References: <641@visdc.UUCP> <16081@vail.ICO.ISC.COM>
Reply-To: jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III)
Organization: VI Software Development, Boise, Idaho
Lines: 31

In article <16081@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> scottw@ico.ISC.COM (Scott Wiesner)
writes:
>> In article <641@visdc.UUCP> I wrote:
>> I am not convinced ... [VGA]... performance would cut it for an
>> X-terminal application.  Mr. Kliewer suggests using
>> graphics coprocessor boards; are cheaper ones coming?
>
> On the subject of graphics coprocessor boards, the IBM 8514/A looks
> very good, and when the AT clones of this board become available later
> in the year, there will be a lot of happy people.
>
> Scott Wiesner
> Interactive Systems

In his Hardware Review in the Jan 1989 BYTE Magazine entitled "Pixels on
the March", Bradley Dyck Kliewer reviewed the 8514/A coprocessor board.
In its highest resolution mode (1024x780 pixels x 16 colors) the 8514
sends an interlaced signal to the display.  It has been stated several
time in this newsgroup that 1024x768 interlaced is almost
indistinguishable from 800x600 pixel SVGA.  This is, of course, just
the sort of technical problem that the clone makers delight in
rectifying, so I guess maybe I'll be happy when this board becomes a
universal standard.  What I really want to do is put together a 1024x
768x16 color noninterlaced X-terminal, based on a PC, that can update
the entire screen in less than 2 seconds.  I think that a SVGA adapter
with real 16-bit latch registers should be capable of something in the
range of 5 to 10 seconds.
--
John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID  83707, (208) 343-1865

uunet!visdc!jiii