CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET (Jonathan Crone) (08/03/88)
So ok, we've acknoledged the amount of memory that the Hedley will require for a 1024 by 800 screen. about 250k approx( just ball park figures) two big questions. First. Can you have a screen (say workbench (and thusly CLI's etc)) that is 1024 by 800, and then have other screens behind it that are 640 by 200 or 640 by 400, and use screen to front and back gadgets to flip between these things? and thus have one mongo big screen, and then have other applications running in the 640 by 200 screens??? Second questions: Have any of the genuiuses with the RFANG's (REALLY Fat Agnus) figured out a hack to get 1 meg of chip ram into the Amiga 1000????? PLEASE PLEASE ? I'm a soldering ace, and i'm not afraid to cut, hack and slice my machine. give me accurate instructions.... and I'm in happy heaven. JpC -------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan P. Crone Vice President, AURA, (Amiga Users of Regina Associated.) (Regina, Sask. Canada ) (eh???) CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET ....uunet!mcl!cronejp come on now.... does ANYONE give a damn about what i have to say? --------------------------------------------------------------------
CRONEJP%UREGINA1.BITNET@cornellc.ccs.cornell.edu (Jonathan Crone) (08/06/88)
Well I tried this message earlier in the week and saw absolutely no trace of it, nor any form of acknoledgment.... So i'm trying again... sorry if you've seen it, but i wouldn't mind some form of answer.... Ok everyone???? incidently this is going out to two different ways that i know to get postings out to comp-sys-amiga. jpC ----------------------------Original message---------------------------- So ok, we've acknoledged the amount of memory that the Hedley will require for a 1024 by 800 screen. about 250k approx( just ball park figures) two big questions. First. Can you have a screen (say workbench (and thusly CLI's etc)) that is 1024 by 800, and then have other screens behind it that are 640 by 200 or 640 by 400, and use screen to front and back gadgets to flip between these things? and thus have one mongo big screen, and then have other applications running in the 640 by 200 screens??? Second questions: Have any of the genuiuses with the RFANG's (REALLY Fat Agnus) figured out a hack to get 1 meg of chip ram into the Amiga 1000????? PLEASE PLEASE ? I'm a soldering ace, and i'm not afraid to cut, hack and slice my machine. give me accurate instructions.... and I'm in happy heaven. JpC -------------------------------------------------------------------- Jonathan P. Crone Vice President, AURA, (Amiga Users of Regina Associated.) (Regina, Sask. Canada ) (eh???) CRONEJP@UREGINA1.BITNET ....uunet!mcl!cronejp come on now.... does ANYONE give a damn about what i have to say? --------------------------------------------------------------------
hull@hao.ucar.edu (Howard Hull) (08/07/88)
Yeah, come to think of it, I did see your first request. I was thinking about how to answer it, but then there was one too many questions for the amount of time I had, plus the fact that I only wanted to address the last one. But now maybe I'll try both of them. >First. Can you have a screen (say workbench (and thusly CLI's etc)) >that is 1024 by 800, and then have other screens behind it >that are 640 by 200 or 640 by 400, and use screen to front >and back gadgets to flip between these things? A screen is a screen is a screen. The screen flipping key will flip the screens ok unless the Amiga software people put in some tests and locks to prevent it. Why would they do that, you no doubt ask? Probably because the 640 by 200 screens would be poorly proportioned and would look like crap, and they don't want to show people crap. They are trying to sell Amiga computers, not give them a poor reputation. The effect would be very similar to the effect you get when you show a 320 by 200 window on a 320 by 400 screen - squashed fonts, flicker, circles turned into ellipses, font strokes thinned to where you can't see them, etc. In one detail I am not sure what they'll do, that is, whether or not the Amiga programmers would put in something to expand the 640 to the width of the 1024 screen (it is 1024 wide (conventional w x h description), right?) or just run pixels into the blitter starting at the left side and going until there were no more pixels left in memory for that line, with screen background "color" filling in the rest of the line. I think this latter one is what they'd have to do, and that's why I think it would come out like crap. You will note that the only reason they can get away with creating 320 x 200 screens pulled down in front of 640 x 400 screens (and they have to go to interlace on both sreens, even so) is that the pixel count is _exactly_ twice for the interlaced hi-res screen - and that's something the electronics can handle in hardware with a divide-by-two binary counter. They don't do so well with dividing by 1.6 [though it would be a trivial matter to design a divide by 1.6 hardware counter for the task of synchronizing the Amiga blitter, but non-trivial to get it installed in 1E6 already existing computers in peoples' offices, homes, and closets. :-) ] >and thus have one mongo big screen, and then have other >applications running in the 640 by 200 screens??? As pointed out by others on the net, you have to have a lot of blitter address space - but it would be possible to do this. > >Second questions: >Have any of the genuiuses with the RFANG's (REALLY Fat Agnus) >figured out a hack to get 1 meg of chip >ram into the Amiga 1000????? >PLEASE PLEASE ? There are probably not very many hardware types that have RFANGs. Even those that do have them are busy with other stuff. When Amiga went from the regular Agnus to the fat Agnus, they did essentially the same thing Intel/IBM did when they went from the 8088 to the 80186. They took some of the surrounding MSI (Medium Scale Integration, i.e. MC7400) logic and integrated it onto the LSI (Large Scale Integration, i.e. MC68881) die. That means that the wires you need to solder to don't exist anymore, but rather are now little tiny silicon etchings on the die inside Fat Agnus. Now they could have exactly transported the outside logic to inside so that the new FA pins would exactly correspond to existing PC traces on some of the logic somewhat removed from the FA, but remember that designers like to change things and are always interested in improving the stuff they did before, taking advantage of certain economies in the new packaging. The result in the case of the Amiga is not only no correspondence between the new Fat Agnus pin names and functions and old A1000 printed circuit traces, but also no place where they particularly agree with points in the remotely located circuits, either. Of course this implies that they changed the detailed nature (not necessarily the function, though) of the surrounding logic packages when they replaced the A1000 logic with the A2000 logic. The equivalent of this also happened in the case of the IBM PC in going from the 8088 8-bit bus (and also the 8086 XT 16-bit bus) to the 80186 IBM PC AT. Things look similar in that there are rectangular cards with resistors, capacitors, and integrated circuit packages all over the place, but of course, no non-smoke-and-fire interconnection between the innards of these cards can take place on any grand scale, I can assure you! >I'm a soldering ace, and i'm not afraid to cut, hack and slice my machine. >give me accurate instructions.... and I'm in happy heaven. So how good are you at soldering to the inside of a glass passivated silicon die? Or if you don't want to do that, how good are you at laying out a new motherboard for your A1000 that incorporates all of A2000 support logic changes? And if you are good at this last one, how good are you at finding a sharp lawyer for when CA sues you for "look and feel"? >Jonathan P. Crone Howard Hull hull@hao.ucar.edu ### And it was said that when God and the devil were discussing the devil's negligence in keeping up his part of the fence line between heaven and hell, and it was mentioned that God had threatened to go to court, the devil said "Oh yeah? and where are YOU going to get a lawyer?!!!" ###
jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (08/08/88)
In article <540@ncar.ucar.edu> hull@hao.UCAR.EDU (Howard Hull) writes:
)>First. Can you have a screen (say workbench (and thusly CLI's etc))
)>that is 1024 by 800, and then have other screens behind it
)>that are 640 by 200 or 640 by 400, and use screen to front
)>and back gadgets to flip between these things?
)A screen is a screen is a screen. The screen flipping key will flip the
)screens ok unless the Amiga software people put in some tests and locks
)to prevent it.
Right. All features and mode changes are free unless we put code in
to disable it. Software is easy. ;^)
It turns out that the depth arrangment works with the new A2024 modes,
but you can't drag down a Hedley screen nor drag down a normal screen
to expose a Hedley screen ('Hedley' is a technical term for reconstituted
bitplanes).
)Why would they do that, you no doubt ask? Probably because the 640 by 200
)screens would be poorly proportioned and would look like crap,
Wrongo, and you are now a nominee for the "Speaks Beyond Whereof He Knows"
awards.
)and they don't want to show people crap.
Well, you do have a few redeeming positions ...
)They are trying to sell Amiga computers,
)not give them a poor reputation. The effect would be very similar to the
)effect you get when you show a 320 by 200 window on a 320 by 400 screen -
)squashed fonts, flicker, circles turned into ellipses, font strokes thinned
)to where you can't see them, etc.
More like when you show a 200 line screen in interlaced modes: vertically
there is a scan-doubling. On the A2024, there is another factor of
two around somewhere.
)In one detail I am not sure what they'll do,
Just this one, eh ... ?
)that is, whether or not the Amiga programmers would put in something to
)expand the 640 to the width of the 1024 screen (it is 1024 wide (conventional
)w x h description), right?) or just run pixels into the blitter starting at
^^^^^^^
dreaming, now ....
)the left side and going until there were no more pixels left in memory for
)that line, with screen background "color" filling in the rest of the line.
Turns out the hardware guys handle scan conversion, and happily so,
since the software would not have a chance.
)I think this latter one is what they'd have to do,
)and that's why I think it would come out like crap.
Wrongo, twice.
)You will note that the only reason they can
)get away with creating 320 x 200 screens pulled down in front of 640 x 400
)screens (and they have to go to interlace on both sreens, even so) is that
)the pixel count is _exactly_ twice for the interlaced hi-res screen - and
)that's something the electronics can handle in hardware with a divide-by-two
)binary counter.
The confusion here between vertical and horizontal tricks is significant.
The vertical direction is simpler. The horizontal is due to Hedley, who
apparently uses a little more than a divide-by-two counter, as your
observation would indicate.
)They don't do so well with dividing by 1.6 [though it would
)be a trivial matter to design a divide by 1.6 hardware counter for the task
)of synchronizing the Amiga blitter, but non-trivial to get it installed in
)1E6 already existing computers in peoples' offices, homes, and closets. :-) ]
God bless that Hedley.
)>and thus have one mongo big screen, and then have other
)>applications running in the 640 by 200 screens???
)As pointed out by others on the net, you have to have a lot of blitter
)address space - but it would be possible to do this.
It will be common.
)>Second questions:
)>Have any of the genuiuses with the RFANG's (REALLY Fat Agnus)
)>figured out a hack to get 1 meg of chip
)>ram into the Amiga 1000?????
)>PLEASE PLEASE ?
)There are probably not very many hardware types that have RFANGs. Even those
)that do have them are busy with other stuff. When Amiga went from the regular
)Agnus to the fat Agnus, they did essentially the same thing Intel/IBM did when
)they went from the 8088 to the 80186. They took some of the surrounding MSI
)(Medium Scale Integration, i.e. MC7400) logic and integrated it onto the LSI
)(Large Scale Integration, i.e. MC68881) die. That means that the wires you
)need to solder to don't exist anymore, but rather are now little tiny silicon
)etchings on the die inside Fat Agnus. Now they could have exactly transported
)the outside logic to inside so that the new FA pins would exactly correspond
)to existing PC traces on some of the logic somewhat removed from the FA, but
)remember that designers like to change things and are always interested in
... those crazy designers ...
)improving the stuff they did before, taking advantage of certain economies
)in the new packaging. The result in the case of the Amiga is not only no
)correspondence between the new Fat Agnus pin names and functions and old A1000
)printed circuit traces, but also no place where they particularly agree with
)points in the remotely located circuits, either. Of course this implies that
)they changed the detailed nature (not necessarily the function, though) of the
)surrounding logic packages when they replaced the A1000 logic with the A2000
)logic.
Kind of runs on, but with my limited understanding of the hardware, this
sounds like a reasonable explanation. I wouldn't advise anyone quoting
from the technical content of this message, though.
)And if you are good at this last one, how good are you at finding
)a sharp lawyer for when CA sues you for "look and feel"?
... nor the business aspects.
) Howard Hull
I dunno Howard, your attempt at explanation and guesses are OK, but you're
pretty inaccurate. Please forgive my good-natured needling. But I
suggest people think back if you post a description of the features of
the Enhanced Chip Set in the future.
jimm
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing
amiga!jimm BIX:jmackraz
Opinions are my own. Comments regarding the Amiga operating system, and
all others, are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (08/09/88)
Answers to Jonathan's questions :
1) Can the A2024 support 1008 X 800 and 640 X 200 screens simultaneously?
Yes, front to back gadgets still work. I am pretty sure you can't drag the
1008 X 800 screen down though. You have to just flip to the other screens.
2) Can you put a 1Meg chip ram agnus into an Amiga 1000. No, not easily.
The Agnus in the 500 and 2000 is nothing like the one in the 1000, many
of the functions/chips on the motherboard have been incorporated into agnus
and the timing is probably all wrong on the 1000.
--Chuck McManis
uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com
These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs) (08/11/88)
In regard to the Hedley monitor. There were two of them at Siggraph88 in the
Commodore Amiga booth. They looked really nice. The 2000 version was larger
and cost more. The smaller version, for A500 and A1000 had special hardware
that is inside the monitor to handle the high resolution. The 2000 version
has a plug in card to handle the resolution. (That's what I was told.) Both
X and NeWS were being displayed. Ameristar claimed that the highest res screen
could be pulled down, but the version of OS was updated incorrectly, and their
version wouldn't. The smaller one will cost in the $500-$1000 range.
David
David Childs Internet: childs@cadnetix.COM
Cadnetix Corp UUCP: cadnetix!childs
5775 Flatiron Pkwy {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!childs
Boulder, CO 80301jimm@amiga.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) (08/12/88)
In article <3550@cadnetix.COM> childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs) writes:
)In regard to the Hedley monitor. There were two of them at Siggraph88 in the
)Commodore Amiga booth. They looked really nice. The 2000 version was larger
)and cost more. The smaller version, for A500 and A1000 had special hardware
)that is inside the monitor to handle the high resolution. The 2000 version
)has a plug in card to handle the resolution. (That's what I was told.) Both
)X and NeWS were being displayed. Ameristar claimed that the highest res screen
)could be pulled down,
it turns out that you can depth arrange it but not drag it down. it's quite
magic enough as it is. Still quite functional, we trust.
)but the version of OS was updated incorrectly,
Well, I guess that's one, perhaps charitable, way to put it.
)and their version wouldn't. The smaller one will cost in the $500-$1000 range.
)
) David Childs Internet: childs@cadnetix.COM
Wish I was there to see NeWS, and the 'big one.' Did you hear any reactions
from the onlookers to the monitor in general?
jimm, OS Updater at your service
--
Jim Mackraz, I and I Computing
amiga!jimm BIX:jmackraz
Opinions are my own. Comments regarding the Amiga operating system, and
all others, are not to be taken as Commodore official policy.ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (08/12/88)
In article <2746@amiga.UUCP> jimm@cloyd.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes: >In article <3550@cadnetix.COM> childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs) writes: >)In regard to the Hedley monitor. There were two of them at Siggraph88 in the ... >)has a plug in card to handle the resolution. (That's what I was told.) Both >)X and NeWS were being displayed. Ameristar claimed that the highest res screen How do these work? Are X and NeWS for the unreleased UN*X system, or do they run under/over/beside AmigaDos? Just what is it that they do? -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (root) (08/13/88)
In article <3599@cadnetix.COM>, childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs) writes: > In article <2746@amiga.UUCP> jimm@cloyd.UUCP (Jim Mackraz) writes: [ some discussion deleted] > Ameristar did push the NeWS screen to the rear to show a workbench. It looked > so much worse, I thought it had to be 320x200. But a 320 workbench? Nah, my > eyes must have got spoiled. No, actually the show disks were built with the workbench screen set to 640x200. It wasn't anything intentional on our part - the screen could have just as easily been 1008x800 (if we had a nice looking Amiga font for that resolution). > > David Childs Internet: childs@cadnetix.COM > Cadnetix Corp UUCP: cadnetix!childs > 5775 Flatiron Pkwy {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!childs > Boulder, CO 80301 Rick Spanbauer SUNY/Stony Brook (& Ameristar)
childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs) (08/16/88)
In article <11731@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >How do these work? Are X and NeWS for the unreleased UN*X system, or do >they run under/over/beside AmigaDos? Just what is it that they do? >Eric Kennedy >ejkst@cisunx.UUCP I'm not 100% sure about NeWS, but I believe both run under AmigaDOS. Or along side if you wish. Dale Luck said that X had 16 built-in bitmap handling functions that happened to correspond to 16 functions that the blitter already did. He only had to have a lookup table of the 16 functions, and called the appropriate blitter routines. He said because of the blitter, Amiga X would run faster than X on a Sun 3/50, and because of the lack of UNIX overhead, Amiga X could run as much as 4 times faster on a 68000 Amiga than a Sun 3/50. (User interface routines and screen stuff, update window, etc.) I really like UNIX, but I love the real-timelyness of AmigaDOS. David Childs Internet: childs@cadnetix.COM Cadnetix Corp UUCP: cadnetix!childs 5775 Flatiron Pkwy {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!childs Boulder, CO 80301
dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) (08/16/88)
In article <3608@cadnetix.COM> childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs) writes: > >He said because of the blitter, Amiga X would run faster than X on a Sun 3/50, >and because of the lack of UNIX overhead, Amiga X could run as much as 4 times >faster on a 68000 Amiga than a Sun 3/50. (User interface routines and screen >stuff, update window, etc.) Before I get bashed by you sun3 owners out there. (I have 3 at work). Let me clarify the above statements. Because of the blitter and exec not being unix, X would run on a plane 68k based amiga as fast if not faster than a sun3/50. The bits certainly are moved and painted quicker, however X is not just blits. Amiga exec is a very efficient low overhead multitasking system. I can't say the same for unix. Since every operation that X does when dealing with client<->server transactions requires task switching, it gets more effective cpu time with a system that has less overhead when switching tasks. Also before I get flamed for being antiunix, nothing is further from the truth. I've ported several early versions of unix to a 68k based machine in a previous life. It is also quite a bit of nonblitting code which is slower on a 7.2mhz 68000 than a 15mhz 68020. So some operations will be faster, some will be the same speed, and some will be slower. Depends on the resources needed. > >I really like UNIX, but I love the real-timelyness of AmigaDOS. > > David Childs Internet: childs@cadnetix.COM > Cadnetix Corp UUCP: cadnetix!childs > 5775 Flatiron Pkwy {uunet,boulder,nbires}!cadnetix!childs > Boulder, CO 80301 -- Dale Luck Boing, Inc. {cbmvax|oliveb|pyramid}|!amiga!boing!dale Although I do contract work for Amiga-LosGatos, my opinions probably don't represent those of Commodore or its management or its engineers, but I think the world would be a better place if they did.
ejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (08/25/88)
In article <3608@cadnetix.COM> childs@cadnetix.COM (David Childs) writes: >In article <11731@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >>How do these work? Are X and NeWS for the unreleased UN*X system, or do >>they run under/over/beside AmigaDos? Just what is it that they do? >I'm not 100% sure about NeWS, but I believe both run under AmigaDOS. Or >along side if you wish. Dale Luck said that X had 16 built-in bitmap >He said because of the blitter, Amiga X would run faster than X on a Sun 3/50, >and because of the lack of UNIX overhead, Amiga X could run as much as 4 times >faster on a 68000 Amiga than a Sun 3/50. (User interface routines and screen >stuff, update window, etc.) Pardon me if I seem to be belaboring the point, but...ah...just what do you _do_ with it? I've never seen X or NeWS on another machine, just read brief descriptions. Is this something that will aid in porting code from other machines to run on the amiga, without having to convert from X to Intuition, for instance? Or do X and NeWS do something useful in themselves? I get the idea that it's similar in that respect to Windows for the PC. Windows doesn't _do_ much of anything by itself, but other (specially written) applications run within it, using its resources. -- ------------ Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (08/26/88)
In article <12011@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: >Pardon me if I seem to be belaboring the point, but...ah...just what do >you _do_ with it? I've never seen X or NeWS on another machine, just >read brief descriptions. Is this something that will aid in porting >code from other machines to run on the amiga, without having to convert Two things to do with. First, all those neat X programs will now run on an Amiga. And the hypertext system that is being written for NeWS will run on an amiga (if it is less than 8 MB, that is). So, once the X product is released, all those neat X programs run on the Amiga. So much for the 'intuition is so non-standard' complaint. Amiga now runs a standard windows system. Second, since both are server-type windows systems (unlike, e.g, suntools and intuition) you can run a program on a remote host that talks to X on your local host. Like right now, i am running X on a sun that is talking to X clients (xterm, xload) on several other hosts. So you get the best of both worlds with either system. X is a lot more real of a product, so i am currently more interested in that, esp. if it sounds like a good implementation. In theory NeWS looks a lot better, but it is beginning to look like it has lost the race. There are LOTS of X-based products in the pipe. One thing i hope C= does is positions the A500 as the cheapest X terminal around. That would be neat. For the price of a smart terminal ($1000 or so) you can get a machine that talks X. Replace all your terminals with X servers! Fun. That ought to be very attractive to universities- esp. if C= makes the Amiga X sources available for nominal fee. But when will X come out? Commodore?? any hints? ron
root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (root) (08/27/88)
In article <647@super.ORG>, rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) writes: > In article <12011@cisunx.UUCP> ejkst@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Eric J. Kennedy) writes: > esp. if it sounds like a good implementation. In theory NeWS looks > a lot better, but it is beginning to look like it has lost the race. Not necessarily. Sun claims they will have a merged X/NeWS out "next year". Of course if you're running in a Sun system then NeWS is important. X vs NeWS is religion, so I'll not comment on it here. > One thing i hope C= does is positions the A500 as the cheapest > X terminal around. That would be neat. For the price of a smart terminal > ($1000 or so) you can get a machine that talks X. Replace all your > terminals with X servers! Fun. That ought to be very attractive to > universities- esp. if C= makes the Amiga X sources available > for nominal fee. > But when will X come out? Commodore?? any hints? Maybe this is an honest mistake, ie Dale Luck == Commodore. The version of X windows that was shown at Siggraph AND at Xhibition this week was done by Boing, Inc. Not Commodore. The person who did the port was Dale Luck. Not Commodore. Let's make sure that the credit for this goes to Dale - he has done a superb job on it. > terminals with X servers! Fun. That ought to be very attractive to > universities- esp. if C= makes the Amiga X sources available > for nominal fee. This is bullsh*t. Why is it only the Amiga market where people insist on having source before they buy a product? Gheesh. If I had just spent a year getting a really nice implementation of X going on the Amiga, the very last thing on earth I would ever consider is giving away source for free. To potential competitors. > But when will X come out? Commodore?? any hints? Don't ask Commodore, ask Boing. > ron Rick Spanbauer Ameristar Technology
rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (08/29/88)
In article <1543@sbcs.sunysb.edu> root@sbcs.sunysb.edu (root) writes: >In article <647@super.ORG>, rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) writes: > Maybe this is an honest mistake, ie Dale Luck == Commodore. The Na, it was a stupid mistake on my part. And worse yet, i said: >> universities- esp. if C= makes the Amiga X sources available >> for nominal fee. And boy was that dumb. And boy was rick right. Well, all i can say is: *** SORRY *** I will be more careful. Sorry, Dale. ron P.S. Personal opinion: Somebody oughta be able to make a pile of dough by bundling together and selling amigas as 'X terminals'. I hope somebody does. P.P.S. Let's see ... TCP/IP, NFS, now NeWS and X. Lots of standards there. The amiga speaks 'em all, without having to run a pseudo-unix yet!