Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!skybridge!davisp From: davisp@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Palmer Davis) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: hardware requirements Keywords: PPc, 34010, green fuzzy bananas Message-ID: <1990Dec17.011944.4298@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> Date: 17 Dec 90 01:19:44 GMT References: <28346@usc> <1990Nov26.000804.20540@virtech.uucp> <1990Dec3.162251.19808@oct1.UUCP> Sender: news@usenet.ins.cwru.edu Organization: TIDNU System Research Group Lines: 37 X-Post-Machine: shasta.scl.cwru.edu Nntp-Posting-Host: shasta.scl.cwru.edu In article <1990Dec3.162251.19808@oct1.UUCP> mason@oct1.UUCP (David Mason) writes: > >Are graphics co-processor cards avaliable for ISC 2.2 X on a '386? >Any particular types recommended? > There are a lot of 340x0 boards out there... it depends how much you want to spend and how much performance you want. If you want something at the very high end (8-plane 1280x1024 with hardware panning, ~40000 xstones in native mode) Artist Graphics and a number of other companies make 34020 boards; if you want to spend less, there are a ton of 34010 boards on the market. Several trade journals have run comparisons of various options recently; TI also publishes a list of 340x0-based products. As for OS support, again, it depends on how much performance you want. There's a company called Pittsburgh Powercomputing that has an X11R4 server that runs on a number of boards in native 34020 (and -10) mode that works transparently with clients from both Interactive and SCO. It should be available Real Soon Now. ISC also tries to make sure drivers are available for a variety of boards; these generally rely on TIGA, DGIS, or some other type of emulation on 34010 systems and get about half the performance from the same hardware. Check with ISC or the board manufacturer in question. [Disclaimer: I used to work for PPc; take the above with a grain of salt.] -- PTD -- BTW: Another big win from using a coprocessor board is that you *aren't* writing to the console video memory, which is hideously slow. And you aren't spending lots of 386 cycles on your server (SCO has Xsight default to running at nice -40!). So your clients should run a lot faster as well. -- Palmer T. Davis | davisp@scl.cwru.edu -OR- ptd2@po.cwru.edu Case Western Reserve University | {att,sun,decvax,uunet}!cwjcc!skybridge!davisp ------------------------------------------------------+------------------------ Wake up and smell the cat food in your bank account. | Life is short.