chu@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Susie W. Chu) (11/09/89)
I have a big bitmap font file ( ~13,000 chinese characters). This font file is originally intened to be used in PC. I was able to move/convert it into unix workstation and X-window font. And I have written couple of X-applications to process Chinese words. But I just don't know the PC operating system (DOS) enough to make it use in PC. I would like to able to display them on my a AT/DOS/EGA color display monitor. Any tips/pointers to guide me would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. ---Susie Chu e-mail address: chu@ames.arc.nasa.gov
plim@hpsgpa.HP.COM (Peter Lim) (11/13/89)
How about forsaking DOS and go on with something like ISC UNIX
which runs on the PC (preferrably a 386). This OS will be able
to run X-window and all your problems will be non-existence.
Regards,
Peter Lim.
HP Singapore IC Design Center.
E-mail address: plim@hpsgwg
Snail Mail address: Peter Lim
Hewlett Packard Singapore,
(ICDS, ICS)
1150, Depot Road,
Singapore 0410.
Telephone: (065)-279-2289akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (11/14/89)
>How about forsaking DOS and go on with something like ISC UNIX >which runs on the PC (preferrably a 386). This OS will be able >to run X-window and all your problems will be non-existence. I would suggest keeping away from ISC at all cost and going with SCO (Unix or Xenix). Getting support from ISC is a joke.
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (11/15/89)
In article <[255f7534:336.2]comp.sys.ibm.pc;1@nstar.UUCP> akcs.larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >>How about forsaking DOS and go on with something like ISC UNIX >>which runs on the PC (preferrably a 386). This OS will be able >>to run X-window and all your problems will be non-existence. > >I would suggest keeping away from ISC at all cost and going >with SCO (Unix or Xenix). Getting support from ISC is a joke. You have evidence that SCO is much better? In any case, support or no, ISC's X seems to be the best performer (some people report an order of magnitude better over other X's), and supports the widest variety of hardware. And their filesystem is definitely faster than the stock UNIX System V's or even SCO's, without incompatability. You are probably right with regard to support, though I think ISC has been improving in that regard. Remember, they came back from the brink of insolvency not too long ago; now that they are owned by Kodak they can affort to put more into support, and from what I've seen, are slowly (perhaps too slowly) doing so. But I don't know anyone--SCO included--that has good after-market support for 386-based UNIX. This has really hurt UNIX in the business world, and IMHO is the reason why OS/2 has a fighting chance. (Even if support for OS/2 is no better, MicroSoft and that magic TriGram [IBM] have the inside track, however irrational that might seem. UNIX has to be seen as *better*.) -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org