ljwilson@utkux1.utk.edu (L. Jack Wilson) (07/12/90)
I have a math professor who is interested in connecting some IBM compatible machines to a Sun 3/60. He wants to see X-Windows on the PC side while connected as a terminal to the Sun. Can anyone give me suggestions for products that run on the PC capable of doing this? Thanks. *********************************************************************** * L. Jack Wilson * Standard * * UTK-OAC Microsupport * Disclaimers * * Consultant * Apply * * Bitnet: lwilson@utkvx3 * * ***********************************************************************
doug@ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) (07/12/90)
In article <1990Jul11.221121.3619@cs.utk.edu>, ljwilson@utkux1.utk.edu (L. Jack Wilson) writes: > > I have a math professor who is interested in connecting some IBM > compatible machines to a Sun 3/60. He wants to see X-Windows on the > PC side while connected as a terminal to the Sun. Can anyone give me > suggestions for products that run on the PC capable of doing this? The only thing I have seen is an announcement for DESQview/X. Quarterdeck is holding a developer/VAR conference in mid August and pre-release copies will be available to attendees. General release of the product is scheduled for "4th Qtr 1990". They've announce support for Xlib, Athena, Motif, Xolw and Xview in the initial release and note that others may become available in the future. -- Doug. "If you want Peace, work for Justice."
mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (07/13/90)
Simply because I like Windows over Deskview (Please, no flames!), there is also X/11AT, which, from what I understand, is a Windows Application that emulates an X terminal on a PC running Windows. I believe it requires an ethernet connection on the PC side. Milan .
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (07/13/90)
In article <6718@ozdaltx.UUCP> doug@ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) writes: >The only thing I have seen is an announcement for DESQview/X. Quarterdeck >is holding a developer/VAR conference in mid August and pre-release >copies will be available to attendees. General release of the product is >scheduled for "4th Qtr 1990". They've announce support for Xlib, Athena, >Motif, Xolw and Xview in the initial release and note that others may >become available in the future. > Quarterdeck was showing DESQview/X at the Xhibition. It looked very impressive. They had a network of DOS (including a 286 portable) and UNIX PC's. The demo included all combinations of servers and clients. The server runs under extended DOS in 286 or 386 machines. Likewise, clients can run in 286 or 386 protected mode. They claimed it would run on a 286 with 2M (this sounds too good to be true). The only snag is who is going to buy it. Does it make any sense to put something as complicated as X server and clients running under extended DOS, when the same machine could run UNIX? Geraldo Veiga
cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) (07/13/90)
From article <46500142@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>, by mms00786@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu: > Simply because I like Windows over Deskview (Please, no flames!), there is > also X/11AT, which, from what I understand, is a Windows Application that > emulates an X terminal on a PC running Windows. I believe it requires an > ethernet connection on the PC side. Could someone post more information about both X/11AT and the new Desqview/X (or whatever)--in particular, anyone who knows about: what versions of Windows X/11AT runs under (if any), how much it costs, where I can order either X/11AT or Desqview's product at a good price, and especially: how do these X terminals rate in the "dog slow" category? Are they dog slow? Are the Really dog slow? Are they as Dog Slow as I imagine a 16-bit implementation of X would run on a 12 MHz 16-bit architecture with almost no registers? :-) Or would either of these puppies make viable X terminals? -- | Clint Jeffery, U. of Arizona Dept. of Computer Science | cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu -or- {noao allegra}!arizona!cjeffery --
mmartin@caip.rutgers.edu (Michael Martin) (07/13/90)
Regarding X Windows on a PC, Integrated Inference Machines has been advertising X windows capability withing Microsoft Windows for some months now. I've seen only the ad, and I don't know the company. Address is given as: Integrated Inference Machines 1468 E Katella Ave Anaheim, Ca 92805 (714) 978-6201 MRMartin
doug@ozdaltx.UUCP (Doug Matlock) (07/13/90)
In article <1990Jul12.221219.1621@agate.berkeley.edu>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > The only snag > is who is going to buy it. Does it make any sense to put something as > complicated as X server and clients running under extended DOS, when > the same machine could run UNIX? Perhaps to protect an investment in DOS software, so that one can slowly make a transition from DOS based products to UNIX based. The big investment most corporations have in software is the custom stuff, not the "off-the- shelf" stuff. -- Doug. "If you want Peace, work for Justice."
arsen@milkfs.itstd.sri.com (Tom Arseneault) (07/14/90)
In article <361@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> cjeffery@cs.arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) writes: >Could someone post more information about both X/11AT and the new >Desqview/X (or whatever)--in particular, anyone who knows about: >what versions of Windows X/11AT runs under (if any), how much it >costs, where I can order either X/11AT or Desqview's product at >a good price, and especially: how do these X terminals rate in the >"dog slow" category? Are they dog slow? Are the Really dog slow? >Are they as Dog Slow as I imagine a 16-bit implementation of X >would run on a 12 MHz 16-bit architecture with almost no registers? :-) >Or would either of these puppies make viable X terminals? >-- I have been evaluating X11/AT for a client but I know almost nothing about the Desqview X11 package. X11/AT is a server only package (this means that your Xterms and all your other programs must run on other machines, Suns, DECs etc) and runs on Windows286. It will also run on Windows386 if started with win88 (in 286 mode) and Windows V3 in real mode. It is incompatable with HIMEM.SYS so you must configure your system as if it had no extended memory (makes running other windows applications rather hard). It works with PC/TCP by FTP Software, my system, or Excelan's The LAN Workplace running withe the EXOS (r) 205, 205T, or 205E Intelligent Ethenet controller cards. It will work with any display and driver that windows will work with (it worked just fine with a no name SuperVGA display card I had but when I upgraded to an Orchid ProDesigner II I started to have network problems execpt when I install Qemm, werid but not a X11/AT problem but it does mean I can't test it at 1024x768x16 untill I get this solved). There was a problem with version 2.0 of X11/AT When I try to run Framemaker, Framemaker would get in to werid states and slooooooooow way down. This seems to have been fixed in a Beta version that I got my hands on. The beta version had much better color mapping between the server and windows, and allows a different virtual screen size with scrolling bars to move around the screen (Frame Maker did not work well with this function). Another product I tryed was PC-X view by Fraphic Software Systems. The version did not use extended memory and handled it's own screen. As a result it did not run Framemaker at all and has much less flexabilty than X11/AT in the choice of monitor/card systems. To be honest I did like the look of the screen a little better on PC-X view than X11/AT and I did not try the extended version that would use extended memory (they did not have either a upgrade or evaluation policy, the salesman on the phone said that I could buy it and return it in 15 days if I did not like it but to properly test it and do my regular Job would require more than 15 days so I opted not to). All in all to summarize, if I can get the video/network problem straightened out and test the thing at 1024x768x16 I'll know if it will be a viable tool for XWindows but I have yet to see a X product for the PC that does not have some sort of limitation (the lack of virtual memory aside as all PCs share that problem) but X11/AT (beta) is the best of the bunch so far (although keep in mind I have only seen and played with two versions but have talked to a few other reps and was not impressed). Oh yes one more thing both these packages must be used on a 286 or above (rather obvious but just thought I would mention it). Thomas J. Arseneault SRI International arsen@itstd.sri.com
hessel@hpcuha.HP.COM (Steve Hessel) (07/14/90)
I am looking into X.11 terminal emulators for PC's. For me
performance is an issue as is cost. Though I can vouch for
none of these, the four I am currently considering are:
PC-Xview/16 from Graphic Software Systems 503-641-2200;
HCL-eXceed+ from Hummingbird Communication 416-470-1203;
XVision, contact Unipress 800-222-0550; and
pcXsight from Locus 408-437-7720 (if that isn't the right
number, they can give it to you).
I have eliminated a number of other potential vendors from
consideration because of cost, performance or system require-
ments, so these are probably a good place to start your
search. If anyone has had experiance with these packages
(good or bad) I would like to know about it and perhaps
narrow my search a bit. Also if anyone knows that a particu-
lar package is worth looking at, please let me know.
Good luck,
Steve Hessel
hessel@hpda.cup.hp.comphil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (07/14/90)
In article <1990Jul12.221219.1621@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: |The server runs under extended DOS in 286 or 386 machines. Likewise, |clients can run in 286 or 386 protected mode. They claimed it would |run on a 286 with 2M (this sounds too good to be true). The only snag |is who is going to buy it. Does it make any sense to put something as |complicated as X server and clients running under extended DOS, when |the same machine could run UNIX? 1) Who wants to run Unix on a 286? 2) It's a lot more economical to have a few very fast servers with expensive software accessed via X-servers than to pay for the expensive software on every possible user's machine, not to mention the cost in disk space and adminstration, upgrades etc. This is a very serious issue for hardware guys, where some of the software is so expensive that you pay by the month. 3) One would imagine DV-X would use a lot less disk space than full Unix. -- -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil PALASM 90: it's not the same old PALASM any more!
werner@aecom.yu.edu (Craig Werner) (07/15/90)
> In article <1990Jul12.221219.1621@agate.berkeley.edu>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > > The only snag > > is who is going to buy it. Does it make any sense to put something as > > complicated as X server and clients running under extended DOS, when > > the same machine could run UNIX? > At the Quarterdeck booth at PC/Expo, the demo machine had 3 generic X windows, and Lotus 1-2-3 in a Desqview window. That is a reason for buying it: X + everything you already have. -- Craig Werner (future MD/PhD, 5.5 years down, 2.5 to go) werner@aecom.YU.EDU -- Albert Einstein College of Medicine (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "Viruses do to cells what Groucho did to Freedonia."
bigelow@hppad.HP.COM (Paul Bigelow) (07/17/90)
> but I have yet to see a X product > for the PC that does not have some sort of limitation I assume you are talking about software-only products. There are other approaches, such as Hewlett-Packard's AXDS/PC. (Warning: I worked on the product and am obviously biased.) AXDS/PC uses the processor (TI3410) on the HP IGC-10 hi-res graphics card to run the X server. This give you the performance and resolution of an X terminal or low-end workstation. Also our server software is very solid. The downside is of course that you do have to buy the hi-res graphics card, in addition to the software. Software can't fix the limitations of a PC. Sometimes the only solution is to add hardware. Paul Bigelow Hewlett-Packard Panacom Automation Division bigelow@hppad.hp.com These are only my opinions, not an official HP statement, etc.
davidsen@sixhub.UUCP (Wm E. Davidsen Jr) (07/17/90)
In article <1990Jul12.221219.1621@agate.berkeley.edu> ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: | Does it make any sense to put something as | complicated as X server and clients running under extended DOS, when | the same machine could run UNIX? This will come as a shock, but there are a lot of us who want to run X, not UNIX. I have a Cray and a Convex to run UNIX, I would like to avoid spending $4k for a color X terminal and get some use out of the ATs we have left over when people got bigger machines. -- bill davidsen - davidsen@sixhub.uucp (uunet!crdgw1!sixhub!davidsen) sysop *IX BBS and Public Access UNIX moderator of comp.binaries.ibm.pc and 80386 mailing list "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me