Path: utzoo!attcan!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... Summary: PC-based X terminals Message-ID: <649@visdc.UUCP> Date: 22 Sep 89 19:31:05 GMT References: <645@visdc.UUCP> <16097@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> <648@visdc.UUCP> <4635@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> Reply-To: jiii@visdc.UUCP (John E Van Deusen III) Organization: VI Software Development, Boise, Idaho Lines: 58 In article <4635@ursa-major.SPDCC.COM> dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.COM (Steve Dyer) writes: > In article <648@visdc.UUCP> I wrote: >> I would like to suggest that you people at Interactive (or SCO or >> Bell/Intel) put together a stand-alone X terminal software package >> to run on low-end 386s. [It solves the] problem of poor X server >> performance on 386 machines running UNIX ... > > First, X runs fine under AIX PS/2 using an 8514 display adapter and > ... the 8514 16" screen. It's quite snappy ... I suspect that the > problem is trying to use X on VGA displays ... The only thing I have against the 8514A is the lack of NON-INTERLACED 1024x768 resolution and the lack of such boards for the AT bus. I think that the concept of the graphics processor is right on the beam, because trying to force pixels one-byte-at-a-time across an 8MH AT bus may very well be at the heart of the problem. The drawback to the particular configuration that you cite is that it is a PC solution, not a multiuser one. It is not cost effective to give each user a PS/2 capable of running AIX, if the application is running on another set of machines. The configuration is FAR too expensive to be used only as a terminal. That goes for any PC hopped up with enough hardware and UNIX-based software to be able to function as an X-terminal. A 20MH 386 board with 4MB, a display, and a ethernet adaptor is NOT too expensive to be used as a terminal. The problem comes when you need to add a big disk and expensive software consisting of the UNIX OS, TCP/IP, X windows, and Merge (Note 1): all this for each user. By then so much is invested that it is natural to try to run some application as well. This requires a bigger disk, at least another 4 MB of memory, hassling with cache memory, and a processor upgrade to 25 or 33 MH (double the price of the mother board for each). If you need to run multiuser, then you are back at square one. This is why I suggested that ISC, SCO, etc. create of version of all this UNIX software that ONLY functions as an X terminal. > IBM sells "X Windows for DOS" and Locus sells what I believe to be the > same product, PC/Xsight. ... I believe you are limited to what you > can do in 640K, but I could be wrong. I know that Locus is working on an extended-memory version of PC/Xsight. The problem is that such extensions are non-standard. > -- > Steve Dyer > dyer@ursa-major.spdcc.com aka {ima,harvard,rayssd,linus,m2c}!spdcc!dyer > dyer@arktouros.mit.edu, dyer@hstbme.mit.edu ___ Note 1: In case it isn't obvious, the reason for basing an X terminal on a PC is to have access to peripherals and cards that currently only work with MSDOS. PC/Xsight, for instance, allows the I/O from MSDOS peripherals to be piped to UNIX applications. -- John E Van Deusen III, PO Box 9283, Boise, ID 83707, (208) 343-1865 uunet!visdc!jiii