Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site hammer.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!hammer!darylm From: darylm@hammer.UUCP (Daryl McDaniel) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Windows and standards. Message-ID: <1701@hammer.UUCP> Date: Tue, 10-Dec-85 13:47:05 EST Article-I.D.: hammer.1701 Posted: Tue Dec 10 13:47:05 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Dec-85 05:41:49 EST References: <314@brl-tgr.ARPA> <6701@boring.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 38 > > I'm afraid it's just a little early for standardising I/O > for bitmap displays. > > Now, what should we choose as a standard? > The highest-level one thinkable? ... > A low-level one? So that I can't use all that truly great stuff > that my machine implements? > > -- > Jack Jansen, jack@mcvax.UUCP > The shell is my oyster. There already exists a standard for talking to graphics displays, whether bitmap or vector. This standard is embodied in the GSX and VDI "machine-independant" packages (I don't know exactly what the standard is called) available from several companies including a company localy called "GSS, or Graphics Software Systems". These packages and the standard upon which they are based define many higher level functions which may be done in the most efficient manner for your hardware. For the case where ones hardware supports a function which GSX doesn't address, there is a function which allows a command to be given directly to the hardware. I have written several programs using GSX and VDI and have had very little difficulty producing single versions of the programs which run on: IBM-PC,XT,AT Zenith Z100,Z150 HP-150 TI-Professional ATT-6300 Burroughs B25 Tek 6200 VAX Daryl V. McDaniel GWD, Sustaining Engineering tektronix!hammer!darylm Tektronix, Inc. (503) 685-2298 The above views are my own and may or may not bear any resembelance to any policy or view of Tektronix or any one else in the real world.