kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (01/11/88)
Several people in my department have been working lately with a
CBT (computer-based-training) program called "Summit." Summit was
designed to work on IBM PC and PC-compatible machines (I'm being
awfully generic here - that may include XT and AT), and we've been
using it on 6300s.
When designing training screens with the original version of Summit,
we could work in 3 modes:
1. Text, using 16 colours and the ASCII character
set plus an extended (?) character set of special
characters to a total of 256 characters.
2. High-resolution graphics, using *2* colours only
(black and one other colour of choice) and pixel-graphics.
3. Low-resolution graphics, using *4* colours only
(black and EITHER red/green/yellow OR pink/blue/white)
and pixel-graphics.
Recently, they came out with a new version that's supposed to
enable users to get all 16 colours in both graphics modes as well
as in text mode - provided the machine being used is equipped with
an EGA card. We have the new software, but we haven't yet been able
to make use of the new capabilities because we don't have EGA cards.
There may be a way, but we haven't figured it out yet.
What we'd like to do is figure out how to tap into the 16 colours
with the equipment we have *without* having to invest in the EGA cards.
I realize that may be a pipe dream, but, heck.
I seem to remember from 'way back that the 6300 as it comes off
the shelf is already equipped with a fancy graphics capabilities,
that it's supposed to be the equivalent of a PC or XT with some
graphics card. What card is that? Is it an EGA card? Anyone know?
If the 6300 is the equivalent of a PC/XT with an EGA card, does
anyone have any idea what kinds of things might be involved in
modifying the CBT package to make it work with our equipment?
OR what's involved in getting our EGA-equivalent to act like an EGA?
Is it possible? Probable? If the 6300 card is not an EGA equivalent,
what *is* it?
Thanks.
Kathy Vincent ------> {ihnp4|mtune|codas|ptsfa}!bakerst!kathy
------> {ihnp4|mtune|burl|codas}!wrcola!kathy
------> { favourite AT&T gateway }!wruxe!unixwcf@psuhcx (William C. Fenner) (01/11/88)
From my (admittedly limited) experience with AT&T 6300's, I have come to the
following conclusion:
AT&T graphics can have the same resolution as (or better than) EGA, but
the addressing etc. of their graphics makes it impossible to use software
designed for the EGA with the extended graphics mode. What this means is that
you will have to contact the supplier of your software and see if they make
a version that can use the 6300 graphics. If the program uses different
drivers for each video card, there might be a driver for the 6300. If not,
you might be out of luck.
Hope this helps...
__ _ _ _____ Bill Fenner wcf @ psuhcx.bitnet
/ ) // // / ' wcf @ hcx.psu.edu
/--< o // // ,-/-, _ __ __ _ __ ihnp4!psuvax1!psuhcx.bitnet!wcf
/___/_<_</_</_ (_/ </_/ <_/ <_</_/ (_aptr@ur-tut.UUCP (The Wumpus) (01/12/88)
In article <1037@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes: >What we'd like to do is figure out how to tap into the 16 colours >with the equipment we have *without* having to invest in the EGA cards. >I realize that may be a pipe dream, but, heck. > >I seem to remember from 'way back that the 6300 as it comes off >the shelf is already equipped with a fancy graphics capabilities, >that it's supposed to be the equivalent of a PC or XT with some >graphics card. What card is that? Is it an EGA card? Anyone know? >If the 6300 is the equivalent of a PC/XT with an EGA card, does >anyone have any idea what kinds of things might be involved in >modifying the CBT package to make it work with our equipment? >OR what's involved in getting our EGA-equivalent to act like an EGA? >Is it possible? Probable? If the 6300 card is not an EGA equivalent, >what *is* it? The graphics cards that come in the 6300 are not EGA compatible. They actually have a better resolution then EGA provides (600x400 or 80x50 text), but they are only monochrome. AT&T also makes a card that allows the mode to be 16 colors (DEB), but it costs over $800 but there you use your old color monitor. AT&T is now offering a new graphics card for their computers that sits in a slot and does CGA, 600x400 mono, 600x400 16 color (DEB?), and EGA. The card requires that the original graphics adapter be disabled. The cost of the card is $500 dollars. The reason for it costing less probably reflects the difference in chip technology since the DEB was introduced several years ago. I have not seen this new graphics card, but I am supposed to be getting the first one in Rochester for a loan. A local computer store is going to let me play with the card for a while and then give them an evaluation of the card. The card started shipping the end of December, so I should be seeing it soon. I will post my initial reactions as soon as the card arrives. -- The Wumpus UUCP: {cmcl2!decvax}!rochester!ur-tut!aptr BITNET: aptrccss@uorvm Internet: aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu Disclaimer: "Who? When? Me? It was the Booze!" - M. Binkley
ralph@mtunf.ATT.COM (Ralph Heredia) (01/12/88)
In article <801@ur-tut.UUCP> aptr@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (The Wumpus) writes: >In article <1037@bakerst.UUCP> kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) writes: >>TEXT DELETED! > >The graphics cards that come in the 6300 are not EGA compatible. They >actually have a better resolution then EGA provides (600x400 or 80x50 640x400 >text), but they are only monochrome. AT&T also makes a card that >allows the mode to be 16 colors (DEB), but it costs over $800 but >there you use your old color monitor. >AT&T is now offering a new graphics card for their computers that >sits in a slot and does CGA, 600x400 mono, 600x400 16 color (DEB?), 640x400 mono 640x400 color EGA NOT DEB. There are two cards that are being offered for the new machines. They are the VDC400 and the VDC750. The VDC400 is a CGA compatible card with 640x400 mono AT&T resolution (Similar to 6300 internal Adaptor) The VDC750 is a Multimode EGA/CGA video board which has all of the modes of the VDC400 plus EGA modes of 640x350 16 color of a palette of 64 colors and 640x400 16 color out of a palette of 64 colors. These video boards work with the 313 monochrome and 318 color monitors as well as with the new 319 color monitor. Hope this helps.
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (01/13/88)
Just got done disassembling a Worksation 86, or whatever it is called that an associate has on loan from AT&T. Pretty decent Unix port. Works well doing XT Layers on a 630 terminal. Well anyway, the design of the machine is pretty much the same as the 6300 / 6310 with the motherboard on the bottom and the slots up top. The video board was set up to the same video modes as the indboard on a 6300, but is was in a regular slot. The chipset was by Vector, or something like that. It looked like a pretty early hardware rev, as there was a truck load of pasted on jumper wires on the video board. It looked like the video board was manufactured by OPE, as it bore the usual appearance of their work. The rest of the Workstation's harware was pretty clean. Mounting the hard drive in the attached sidecar was a good idea. Eventhogh the video board appeared to be very much a patched-up affair, it did seem to work OK. The only real criticism I have of the Workstation is that the keyboard has a pretty cheesey tactile feel like a low-budget Taiwan clone. The stupid coiled cord is too short, exits from the left of the keyboard and has to plug into the right of the machine. Dumb. Come to think of it the 6300's keyboard cable is a similar design, but it isn't as short as the cable on the Workstation's keyboard. The keyboard on the 6300s was really pretty good. It wasn't like a bunch of miniature pogo sticks like an IBM, and it wans't mushy like clone keyboards. Of course, some people didn't like the key layout but that is more of an issue for endless debate.
ir1@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ir1) (01/15/88)
I am running an ATT6300 which for the purpose of this question is the same as an IBM XT. I was running a Seagate 225 20M hard disk which gave me a Norton Utility Index of 1.1. I have now switched to a 40M Seagate 251 with a WD WX1 controller, partioned into a small C, and a 20M D and E drive. (Partioning done with Speedstore.) The Norton Index on the 251 is .5, and stopwatch timings of program loading indicate that the new drive is half as fast as the old one. I didn't do the low level format and Seagate doesn't seem helpful (although they claim the 251 should be as fast as the 225). So, can any one help me out. I would happy if I got the 251 to be as fast as the 225, although happier if it were faster. Does anyone know the optimal interleave for the 251 with the WD WX1 and an XT. Alternatively is there a better half height drive for the money about $500-600). Thanks in advance Neal Beck Dept. of Pol. Sci beck@ucsd (Bitnet) beck@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu (Arpa)
rps@homxc.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) (01/16/88)
In article <938@neoucom.UUCP>, wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > > Just got done disassembling a Worksation 86, or whatever it is ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ What is this, a new PC? What do you mean by "Unix port"? > called that an associate has on loan from AT&T. Pretty decent Unix > port. Works well doing XT Layers on a 630 terminal. > > Well anyway, the design of the machine is pretty much the same as > the 6300 / 6310 with the motherboard on the bottom and the slots up > top. > > The video board was set up to the same video modes as the indboard > on a 6300, but is was in a regular slot. The chipset was by > Vector, or something like that. It looked like a pretty early > hardware rev, as there was a truck load of pasted on jumper wires > on the video board. It looked like the video board was > manufactured by OPE, as it bore the usual appearance of their work. AT&T has two new video boards: the VDC400 which is functionally identicle to the built in video board of all the previous machines, and the VDC750. The VDC750 has all the modes of the VDC400 plus EGA. The VDC400 is the standard equipment on the new PCs and is compatible with the 318H monitor. The VDC750 requires the 319 monitor, which is new. I believe it is a multifrequency type to allow it to handle the 400 line AT&T mode or the 350 line EGA mode. I believe both boards are made by Paradise. The DEB standard is not offered on the new boards but AT&T still supports it. The DEB itself is no longer made (*I believe*). It seems funny that AT&T is just now offering EGA, (and a new monitor for it) when everybody else is jumping on VGA. VGA may be in the near future, especially if Paradise is making cards for AT&T. Having seen EGA and the 400 line mode side by side, EGA is a step down. VGA looks great though. Russ Sharples homxc!rps NOTE: The above in NO WAY reflects the opinions of AT&T. These opinions are my own and the results of un-scientific and highly irregular analysis methods.
wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) (01/18/88)
In article <2827@homxc.UUCP>, rps@homxc.UUCP (R.SHARPLES) writes: > In article <938@neoucom.UUCP>, wtm@neoucom.UUCP (Bill Mayhew) writes: > > > > Just got done disassembling a Worksation 86, or whatever it is > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > What is this, a new PC? What do you mean by "Unix port"? My apologies if I got the name of the machine wrong. It is whatever the most recent AT&T 80386-based computer is called. I belive the AT&T '386 product has been written about in such places as Infoworld. As far as the Unix on the machine goes: I don't know if it still considered a beta release -- possibly. I have read some articles in the computer trade rags that AT&T had contracted out to one of any number of houses [which house depends on which rag you read] to perform the porting of Unix to the 80386. I guess that I mean "Unix Port" in the sense that somebody or more likely bodies had to do the work of getting Ssys V running on the '386 taking full advantage of the '386s features, rather than just pretending the '386 is a '286. The [MS] DOS-merge facility was not available at the time I looked the machine over. We couldn't do to much with the 630 termianl, as a dmdcc compiler was unavailable. The 630 did run multiple sessions quite effectively, though.