Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!phys169 From: phys169@canterbury.ac.nz Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: processor for graphics terminal [was: PC/AT clones with RISC cpu] Message-ID: <1990Nov6.101902.9683@canterbury.ac.nz> Date: 5 Nov 90 21:19:02 GMT References: <2081@aber-cs.UUCP> <0093F0E4.0B02A980@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <1990Nov3.235115.21250@zoo.toronto.edu> <5530@labtam.labtam.oz> Organization: University of Canterbury Lines: 82 In article <5530@labtam.labtam.oz>, graeme@labtam.labtam.oz (Graeme Gill) writes: >> In article <0093F295.10626840@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >> >People will want X-terms and people will want PC-compatability... >> > [good reasons why PC's running X give very limited performance] > > All these problems are reflected in the performance quoted for PC > X-terminal emulation - generally 10 to 100 times slower than purpose > built Xterminals and workstations. Hence the market for Xterminals - > workstation performance graphics on your desktop at a lower price. > Still, the demand for PC-type equipment remains - e.g .where an organisation has a big commitment to PC's already, or where stand-alone equipment is more appropriate (ever try managing a bunch of Unix systesm, one-per-site, where the users can barely manage DOS?). So, if you can't make a good Xterminal out of a PC by adding software, how about a replacement graphics card with Ethernet & 2nd CPU on-board? That would solve bandwidth problems and compatibility problems (given the right hardware design). My opinion is that now the "leading edge" of technology applies to a relatively small number of users - before, when great improvements in speed came, every computer user (from the home user up) could actually do with the extra performance; now, there are becoming less and less buyers that actually need that extra technology (although everyone will say it's nice). The "bread and butter" for computer manufacturers will remanin with the majority of users in offices and the like, where something like a PC is good enough. Power-hungary programs may come along to raise the performance requirements a bit, but not enough to justify the huge cost of R&D that an increasingly small section of the market wants. Not that I, for one, think I have enough computer power at the moment, but as more people start to realise they would be paying more for power they don't need, they will be content to stick with (say) Asian manufacturers turning out acceptable-performance machines using yesterday's technology. This seems to be the real limit of growth, not bus bandwidth or the speed of light. The one thing, other than performance, that grabs the "average" buyer (and especially corporate buyers) is the fear of equipment becoming obsolete. Curiously enough, this is working in favour of PC's and against Unix workstations (when many would argue it ought to be the other way around). The PC's have been here for such a long time, and the Unix-based workstation market seems so volatile. Manufacturers of the latter (especially m88k-based ones, according to the previous thread) should stop squabbling, and adopt some of the PC-world stability and respectability, even if the (relatively small number of) people who appreciate what's going on under the hood see the respectibility in modern designs. As I indicated above, you don't have to be saddled with all the limitations of the PC standard, to accomodate PC users. All this, of course, has a motive behind it; I've been wanting to buy some workstations which will run X-windows, with good speed, and yet not loose anything we had with 286-based PC's. Hopefully, some intelligent reader will take to heart what I have said, and produce the workstation of my dreams, by Christmas (which year?), please! :-) It would have a 16" monochrome screen with at least 32 shades (and accept any VGA mono/colour screen), an AT/VT220 compatible keyboard, rodent, optional diskette drive, 386 processor, RS232 and RS422 and parallel I-O on the motherboard, thin-wire Ethernet and multi plane video card with 2nd (purpose-built) CPU on a single card, small box (expansion can be via the network), and cost about the same as a conventional big-box 386-based PC. Okay, this isn't the place for wish-lists. The real point is, though, people have different ideas of what an ideal workstation should be an do. It becomes difficult to cater for all tastes, and still be competative. PC's have many different screens, keyboards, and so on; manufacturers need not produce all these themselves. It is tempting to say that X-windows compatibility is all that is required, that what goes on inside the box isn't the user's concern. Even now, X-terminals connected to a fast Unix box fail to give each user a good PC emulator, for example, since only one person can use the computer comfortably when that is running. Other people can probably think of good reasons why the local workstation has to perform in its own right, and what it does (and how compatible the hardware behind it is) remains important. I wish it wasn't, but people designing without that realisation will be doing their sales pitch to a smaller audience. I apologise for taking such a long time to say this, and for inserting apologies every other sentence for defending antiquated PC technology, but there are some important plusses there, and the temptation to reject it completely is rather fool-hardy, in my humble opinion. Bye for now, Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of CAnterbury, New Zealand.