Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site homxb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!homxb!gemini
From: gemini@homxb.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: UNIX Futures
Message-ID: <1307@homxb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 4-Mar-86 09:12:51 EST
Article-I.D.: homxb.1307
Posted: Tue Mar  4 09:12:51 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 5-Mar-86 05:25:50 EST
References: <67@cstvax.UUCP> <257@maynard.UUCP>, <1199@ulysses.UUCP>
Organization: PC Research, Inc.
Lines: 62

> 
> Job control is pretty neat, if all you have is a dumb terminal.  But an
> even better solution is virtual consoles, or windows.  ...
...
> 
> The nice part about virtual consoles or windows is that they don't
> require special Berkeley-esque signals and terminal drivers and whatnot.
> Programs are completely unaware anything is going on;  you don't have
> to hack your screen editor to repaint the screen when you reenter it.
> -- 
> Larry Campbell                                 The Boston Software Works, Inc.

Let me point out the "poor man's window system" which comes with VENIX SVR2.
They used a slight hack to the console driver on an IBM PC; it allows four
FULL SCREEN login sessions on a CGA, plus one more if you also have the
monochrome adapter attached.  Potentially, an EGA adapter could have
eight such login sessions.  You switch sessions by pressing Alt-1 through
Alt-4 for the CGA, and Alt-5 for the monochrome.

Now, for the way I typically use UNIX as a programmer, I submit that this
approach provides the most functionality for the least cost.  

	1) I can log in as ANY user, on ANY screen (except root can only
	   login on screen 1).
	2) I always have a full 25 x 80 to work with.
	3) I can instantly switch screens. No delay while screen is repainted.
	4) I don't have to pay for expensive large screens, either in
	   dollars or in space.
	5) I can still do graphics, but if I do, I lose the current
	   displays on other screens.  Not a huge loss, since I rarely
	   use graphics.

A typical usage for me might find:
	screen 1	root	Just in case I need a kill, or to
				install something.
	screen 2	me	Using editor or compiling
	screen 3	me	"Hack" ready to play during long compiles
	screen 4	me	Terminal emulator running to host.
				(yup, lots of times I download software to
				the PC/AT to compile it there during
				development - it compiles MUCH faster than
				the (unamed) super-mini compiles it)

What am I missing?  To my mind, nothing, really.  I felt some amount
of mouse envy a year ago.  So I got one, wrote a mouse driver with pop
up menus, and tried using it with the editor, spreadsheet, shell, hack,
etc.  Guess what - cobwebs all over the poor little thing now.  I found
it was only usefull with "PAINT" programs.  If I could change anything,
I'd go for a display with (more) lines of 132 columns.

It seems to me that the memory (screen and program) necessary for a real
window system is being poorly utilized for a great percentage of us.  Even
if the display hardware doesn't support multiple pages, the kernel could
simulate this by keeping the pages in kernel memory and just block moving
them out to the screen on a session change.  My point is that while
huge displays and window systems are fun, for most of us they are
an unecessary waste of (money, CPU cycles, memory).  One page on one
screen wasn't enough, to be sure, but the "in vogue" solution of large
displays and massive window systems is overkill.

Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 922-1134
..!ihnp4!houxm!castor!{rer,pcrat!rer} <--Replies to here, not to homxb!!!