Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!ucsdhub!esosun!seismo!uunet!xpiinc!mjb From: mjb@xpiinc.UU.NET (Michael J. Braca) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: A Thought on X Terminals Message-ID: <197@xpiinc.UU.NET> Date: 22 Feb 89 17:47:06 GMT References: <19613@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <611@gt-eedsp.UUCP> <74@torsqnt.UUCP> <474@salgado.stan.UUCP> Reply-To: mjb@xpiinc.uu.net Distribution: comp Organization: Visual Technology / Xpi Division, Providence RI Lines: 25 In article <474@salgado.stan.UUCP> dce@salgado.UUCP (David Elliott) writes: > >Maybe I've been given the wrong impression, but I thought that the NCD >normally kept a copy of the server in memory, and that the only >reason it had download capability was so that if you needed to >download a new version of the server (or even another type of graphics >subsystem!), you could do so instead of having to pop the case and >change the PROMs. This is similar to EEPROMs found in some other >types of products. Let me rephrase that. You believe the server is downloaded to non-volatile memory so the downloaded code would survive a power cycle. In fact, there are no X terminals I know of that include this feature today, but it's a great idea if you like downloadability but don't like to wait 30 seconds for the terminal to come up after a power-on. On the other hand, a representative of a Major Computer Company told me that users would tolerate a wait for up to one minute for a terminal to come up. So, as with most features, it all comes down to: how much is that 30 seconds worth to you (or your network administrator)? My gut feeling is: not what it would cost you. Mike Braca Visual Technology