phil@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Phil Meyer) (09/13/89)
I have talked with someone who has seen a cartridge that converts an AT&T 630 into an X terminal. Is this a commercial product? How do I get one? My local vendors know nothing about it. Thanks in advance. +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ | Honesty is in the eye of | Phil Meyer | | the creditor. | Usenet: <backbone>!attctc!lodestar!phil | | | VoiceNet: (214) 991-0897 | +=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/13/89)
In article <9340@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> phil@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Phil Meyer) writes: >I have talked with someone who has seen a cartridge that converts an AT&T >630 into an X terminal. >Is this a commercial product? How do I get one? My local vendors know >nothing about it. It wasn't on the 600 series terminal price sheet I obtained a few months ago from the 600 series product manager. The standard 630 does support plug-in ROM cartridges, although this is the first mention of a specific use for that that I've heard. I've previously given some thought to what it would take to support X on a 630. The most glaring problem is that the 630 does not provide an Ethernet connection. You could follow the lead of one X terminal vendor (Graph-On?) and provide a host X server that talks with the 630 over its usual serial-line connection. The only other implementation difficulty is that X is a lot of work to implement. It sounds as though someone has taken the trouble to do so. I wonder why, though, because X seems to me a step backward. 630-specific programs are generally much more responsive and easier to produce in the first place. The main benefit of a 630-X would seem to be if you happen to have 630s for other reasons and want to tap into applications that ONLY support X. Incidentally, we're currently making improvements to the X version of Rob Pike's "sam" text editor. X sure is a pain!
lyndon@auvax.uucp (Lyndon Nerenberg) (09/20/89)
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >I've previously given some thought to what it would take to >support X on a 630. The most glaring problem is that the 630 >does not provide an Ethernet connection. You could follow the lead >of one X terminal vendor (Graph-On?) and provide a host X server >that talks with the 630 over its usual serial-line connection. Gak! At 4800 baud effective throughput? No thanks. >I wonder why, though, because X seems to me a step backward. >630-specific programs are generally much more responsive and >easier to produce in the first place. They also require 630 specific terminals. The 630 on my disk costs as much (probably more) than the VAXstation 2000 sitting beside it. The 630 is a nice terminal, but there is absolutely no way I can cost justify them when, for less money, I can buy an "X terminal" that also happens to run Unix. >The main benefit of a >630-X would seem to be if you happen to have 630s for other >reasons and want to tap into applications that ONLY support X. No, the main benefit would be the ability to talk to the other half of our campus network that runs BSD. X server/client source is free; Source to layers, the 630 developers kit, etc., most definately is not. Given the relative costs, X wins by miles. Lyndon Nerenberg VE6BBM / Computing Services / Athabasca University {alberta,decwrl,lsuc}!atha!lyndon || lyndon@cs.AthabascaU.CA "I think every man should have a wife. You can't blame everything on the government." -- Jed Clampett
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) (09/20/89)
In article <1112@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> lyndon@auvax.uucp (Lyndon Nerenberg) writes: >gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>You could follow the lead >>of one X terminal vendor (Graph-On?) and provide a host X server >>that talks with the 630 over its usual serial-line connection. >Gak! At 4800 baud effective throughput? No thanks. I use my 630 at 19.2KB and it works fine. You appear to be thinking about the overhead of the scrolling terminal emulator, which the terminal's X interpreter would supplant. Because the 630 has a dedicated MC68010 processor, it's capable of serving X requests at well over 19.2KB, depending on the nature of the requests. >The 630 is a nice terminal, but there is absolutely no way I can >cost justify them when, for less money, I can buy an "X terminal" >that also happens to run Unix. The way I justify them is that the application user's time is much more expensive than low-end terminal equipment. >>The main benefit of a >>630-X would seem to be if you happen to have 630s for other >>reasons and want to tap into applications that ONLY support X. >No, the main benefit would be the ability to talk to the other half >of our campus network that runs BSD. All the layers-supporting systems we use with our 630s are BSD-based. On the other hand, X availability on any system, including the BSD ones, is still rather low. Therefore 630-X still seems to me to be useful primarily in the context that I cited. >X server/client source is free; Source code for most X servers is NOT free. You may be thinking about the SunOS version, but Sun workstations are rather expensive X terminals. >Source to layers, the 630 developers kit, etc., most definately >is not [free]. But it's relatively inexpensive, especially when you amortize the license across all the terminals at a site.