object@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ken Tough) (03/25/91)
As mentioned in another article, we use an operating system
closely based on XINU for various real-time programming applications.
We would like to provide an "open" graphical interface to these
systems, and we are considering using 'X'.
We would like to run the client window manager on our machines, which
would then be connected to standard X-terminals or servers.
Our machines are 68000 based (*not 680[234]0 based*), using this
XINU-like OS. We would appreciate any advice we might get about this
from people who may have had experience in the area:
- We were told the (8/10) MHz 16bit 68000 would be just too slow to
run the Xwindows library calls. This seems a little hard to swallow
- The available X software seems portable among UNIXes but may be a
big job to port to non-UNIX OS. Will SIGNALs and things like
select() calls be an enormous problem?
- What don't we realize?
Thanks for your help,
Ken Tough
===========================================================================
{~~ ( )) _ __ m m / OBJECTIVE
I\ (___) ___ <*> (~ )) m / TECHNOLOGIES
/I \ (~ ~) ~ (( _) m | | Falmouth,
/ I \ (_ )) / Cornwall,
/__I___\ (____) | |/ United Kingdom
~ ____I____. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/| \ 44 326 76896
<_________|) _____ ~~~ __ ~~--__ -- ~~ ___/| | FAX 44 326 77689
--
Automatic Disclaimer:
The views expressed above are those of the author alone and may not
represent the views of the IBM PC User Group.
-- dale@boing.UUCP (Dale Luck) (03/26/91)
In article <1991Mar24.220320.15446@ibmpcug.co.uk> object@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ken Tough) writes: >As mentioned in another article, we use an operating system >closely based on XINU for various real-time programming applications. >We would like to run the client window manager on our machines, which >would then be connected to standard X-terminals or servers. >Our machines are 68000 based (*not 680[234]0 based*), using this >XINU-like OS. >- We were told the (8/10) MHz 16bit 68000 would be just too slow to > run the Xwindows library calls. This seems a little hard to swallow I agree with you, the person making this statement should state the hardware and os that they are refering to as inefficient to support the X Window model. A standard 68000 running at 7.18mhz is clearly fast enough if programmed properly as is evidenced by the many customers we have using Amiga 500's and A2000's as both client and server systems. >- The available X software seems portable among UNIXes but may be a > big job to port to non-UNIX OS. Will SIGNALs and things like > select() calls be an enormous problem? Signals usually can be emulated by most reasoably designed multitasking os's. In the case of X Windows, there are very few signals that are actually absolutely necessary. A good working select call is a must, actually a minimal bsd socket emulation library is really needed. This can usually be built on a well designed lower level ipc mechanism. >- What don't we realize? In our case the port of the clients/toolkits/etc. was not nearly as difficult as the port of the Server. Coexistant with the native graphics/user interface can be a source of real trouble. It is a big job porting X to a non-Unix platform. Fortunately the Amiga OS has the underlying basics necessary to support a complete X Window System. > Thanks for your help, > Ken Tough Dale Luck GfxBase, Inc. -- Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc. {uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (03/30/91)
In article <1991Mar24.220320.15446@ibmpcug.co.uk> object@ibmpcug.co.uk (Ken Tough) writes: >- We were told the (8/10) MHz 16bit 68000 would be just too slow to > run the Xwindows library calls. This seems a little hard to swallow Indeed. I know of two X servers running on 68000's. The original NCD terminal (NCD16) and GfxBase's server for Amiga & AmigaDOS. Both had >=acceptable performance, supported >=very good sized displays & etc. While the Amiga server relied on the built in custom chips, it also had to share the CPU with other AmigaDOS processes. The NCD, from what could be told by looking at the motherboard, did not have any coprocessors. >- The available X software seems portable among UNIXes but may be a > big job to port to non-UNIX OS. Will SIGNALs and things like > select() calls be an enormous problem? At least for the Amiga server, Dale claims that X11 "just ports". In general .. isn't X11/Xt code (that is, applications level code) pretty much free of particular OSisms? While I've only been working with this for ~ 1 year, I've only touched any Unixisms (select() and the rest of the socket() interface) once. The rest has been X11/Xt, Motif and XVT in varying mixtures. But I am talking about applications code. The layer insulating the application from those OSims *is* the Xt layer so obviously the system-specific uglinesses occur there. Fortunately you only gotta do it approximately once. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future
jim@ncd.COM (Jim Fulton) (03/30/91)
The NCD (16), from what could be told by looking at the motherboard, did not have any coprocessors. The NCD16 has a small graphics ASIC.