Xref: utzoo comp.arch:19041 comp.windows.x:29202
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce!labtam!graeme
From: graeme@labtam.labtam.oz (Graeme Gill)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: processor for graphics terminal [was: PC/AT clones with RISC cpu]
Summary: Opportunity to market an X graphics/network PC card may have passed
Message-ID: <5549@labtam.labtam.oz>
Date: 7 Nov 90 03:52:21 GMT
References: <2081@aber-cs.UUCP> <0093F0E4.0B02A980@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> <1990Nov6.101902.9683@canterbury.ac.nz>
Organization: Labtam Information Systems Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 55

In article <1990Nov6.101902.9683@canterbury.ac.nz>, phys169@canterbury.ac.nz writes:
> 
> 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.  
> 

	There seems to be a definite 'knee'
in the performance/usability curve of an X server. Measured by the Xstone
benchmark (and the sort of applications currently available) that knee occurs
somewhere around 20K to 25K Xstones. PC based X terminal emulators have
a performance around the 2 - 5K xstones, well short of the mark. What
I am saying is that there is still a lot of room for performance
improvements in PC products. I also have information that suggests
that a number of asian manufacturers are seriously looking at mass
manufacture of cheap fast X terminals.

> 
> 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).
> 
> Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of CAnterbury, New Zealand.

	An excellent idea that would provide a standard graphics interface for 
all software running on a PC type platform, even MS-DOS programs. Unfortunately
for it to work there would have to be wide acceptance of the interface standard
within the PC community, and I suspect that the window of opportunity for
this product is nearly closed. It would need:

1) A massed produced X interface card ie:
	80960/29000/34020 + 82596 + 2/4Meg RAM + Vram + ASIC + BT459/ecl
	shift register on a card for < $1000

2) Software support from some notable operating systems and applications
   developers - ie Microsoft, Autocad, Lotus etc.

3) Inclusion as standard from some notable manufacturer, ie IBM, Compaq etc.

	To my mind a graphics card with X as the interface makes much more
sense than the current mish mash of low performance products and standards -
e.g. VGA, TMS340XX standard, 8515A etc.  Since the X server would most
likely be uploaded, there would also be scope for keeping up with
changes in graphics standards, and the splitting of the workload
would lead to better performance. - and another thing, the PC applications
would then become X11 compatible; at last you could run all those nifty
PC programs from your Xterminal/Workstation etc.

	Graeme Gill
	Electronic Design Engineer
	Labtam I.S.D. Pty Ltd