graeme@labtam.labtam.oz (Graeme Gill) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov6.101902.9683@canterbury.ac.nz>, phys169@canterbury.ac.nz writes: > > Not that I, for one, think I have enough computer power at > the moment, but as more people start to realise they would be paying more for > power they don't need, they will be content to stick with (say) Asian > manufacturers turning out acceptable-performance machines using yesterday's > technology. This seems to be the real limit of growth, not bus bandwidth or > the speed of light. > There seems to be a definite 'knee' in the performance/usability curve of an X server. Measured by the Xstone benchmark (and the sort of applications currently available) that knee occurs somewhere around 20K to 25K Xstones. PC based X terminal emulators have a performance around the 2 - 5K xstones, well short of the mark. What I am saying is that there is still a lot of room for performance improvements in PC products. I also have information that suggests that a number of asian manufacturers are seriously looking at mass manufacture of cheap fast X terminals. > > So, if you can't make a good Xterminal out of a PC by adding software, how > about a replacement graphics card with Ethernet & 2nd CPU on-board? That > would solve bandwidth problems and compatibility problems (given the right > hardware design). > > Mark Aitchison, Physics, University of CAnterbury, New Zealand. An excellent idea that would provide a standard graphics interface for all software running on a PC type platform, even MS-DOS programs. Unfortunately for it to work there would have to be wide acceptance of the interface standard within the PC community, and I suspect that the window of opportunity for this product is nearly closed. It would need: 1) A massed produced X interface card ie: 80960/29000/34020 + 82596 + 2/4Meg RAM + Vram + ASIC + BT459/ecl shift register on a card for < $1000 2) Software support from some notable operating systems and applications developers - ie Microsoft, Autocad, Lotus etc. 3) Inclusion as standard from some notable manufacturer, ie IBM, Compaq etc. To my mind a graphics card with X as the interface makes much more sense than the current mish mash of low performance products and standards - e.g. VGA, TMS340XX standard, 8515A etc. Since the X server would most likely be uploaded, there would also be scope for keeping up with changes in graphics standards, and the splitting of the workload would lead to better performance. - and another thing, the PC applications would then become X11 compatible; at last you could run all those nifty PC programs from your Xterminal/Workstation etc. Graeme Gill Electronic Design Engineer Labtam I.S.D. Pty Ltd
staff@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli) (11/09/90)
graeme@labtam.labtam.oz (Graeme Gill) writes: ... >would lead to better performance. - and another thing, the PC applications >would then become X11 compatible; at last you could run all those nifty >PC programs from your Xterminal/Workstation etc. According to Quarterdeck advertising (a neat brochure in a recent issue of BYTE mag), this compatibility can be yours next January with X/Desqview. A SW-only solution, so performance is in question, but... -- Alex Martelli - CAD.LAB s.p.a., v. Stalingrado 45, Bologna, Italia Email: (work:) staff@cadlab.sublink.org, (home:) alex@am.sublink.org Phone: (work:) ++39 (51) 371099, (home:) ++39 (51) 250434; Fax: ++39 (51) 366964 (work only), Fidonet: 332/401.3 (home only).