Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!uunet!orca!es.com!bpendlet
From: bpendlet@es.com (Bob Pendleton)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: More on Intergraph....
Message-ID: <1991Feb25.222915.12782@dsd.es.com>
Date: 25 Feb 91 22:29:15 GMT
References: <1991Feb22.074055.7306@ariel.unm.edu>
Sender: usenet@dsd.es.com
Reply-To: bpendlet@dsd.es.com
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Design Systems
Lines: 15
Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.187.85.33

In article <1991Feb22.074055.7306@ariel.unm.edu>, ptran@hydra.unm.edu (Michael Burg) writes:
|> >2.  Why don't they use X for their windows interface?

|> 	How about other vendors like Sun, DEC, IBM... These vendors born after
|> MIT came out X window?  Anyway, the reason is that all the Intergraphs I meet
|> told me that Intergraph will not support X since X does not have the graphic
|> capabilities like MicroStation which requires 2 virtual screens to run.

I suspect that there is a lot of miscommunication going on in this
discussion. I've never used or worked with an Intergraph machine, but
adding multiple virtual screens to an X server is pretty easy. I doubt
that the requirement for multiple virtual screens would stop them for
long.

				Bob P.