tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Tim Northrup) (03/14/90)
Well, its been a few weeks since I posted a request for comments regarding the GraphOn X Terminal, the OptiMaX 200. Since the response has now dwindled to a halt, it must be time to post a summary. My thanks to everyone for all the comments I recieved. -- Tim I recieved a couple of comments regarding serial connection support for NCD's X Terminals: } From: "Neil Shrimpton (814) 863-0662" <NXS1@psuvm.psu.edu> } } You should also check out NCD. The latest information that we } have from them is that they support serial connections as well. } Like Graphon they also use special protocol techniques to speed } comunication. We have several NCD's and are very happy with } them, and because they are the biggest X-terminal company around, } the company will probably survive and continue to provide service. } Neil } From: vicki@ncd.com (Vicki Maniglia) } } Tim, } } NCD has a new product that optimizes serial connection on an x-window } terminal. Please email your address so that I can forward this } information to you. After looking over the information I recieved from NCD, it looks like the NCD would be a much more expensive solution (the terminal itself is about $800+ more than the GraphOn, and then you need to spend some more to get the XRemote package, and the special PROM's, etc.). Does anyone have experience in what it would *really* cost to use one of these with serial lines? General consensus does seem to indicate that these are one of the finest X terminals available, though. } From: "Brian R. Smith" <brsmith@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> > } [My opinions on them are somewhat biased - I normally use a } SparcStation 1 as an X server...] } } They work, but you get what you pay for: } The screen size is only 640x480. (Small, to me. I usually work on Suns.) } (Fairly sharp, but one of ours has already had be returned for service } on the display. It dimmed to black over a period of months.) } The only brightness/contrast control is hidden on the underside of } the back of the monitor. Not as inaccessible as the one on a Sun } monitor, but the same general annoyance. } Because everything has to go through RS232, it's slow. Bitmaps } especially are bad. You DON'T want to do a full-screen image for } a background. Tiles, on the other hand, blitz. } I've only seen servers for Suns, but they may have fixed that by now. } (We got a binary-only distribution for Sun 3's and 4's. It includes } most of the X distribution, if you didn't already have it.) } Their software and documentation is pretty mediocre. } (We found out by experimentation that you must have System V semaphores } in your Sun kernel for their server to work.) } The keyboard looks and feels cheap - some of the keys are labeled in } unmatching fonts, and the only supports to keep it tilted to a normal } typing angle are two plastic pegs you stick into holes near the back. } The mouse looks cheaper than the keyboard. It has two little wheels } that rub on the desk as you drag it around - not even a ball. } } Compared to some of the other X terminals on the market, they're } pretty sad. } } They make excellent dumb terminals, but $1200 is expensive for a } dumb terminal. } } If you're going to be using it every day, get something else. For } general access for large numbers of students, etc, (who have no } choice) it might be a very good idea. } From: metz@iamsm.iam.unibe.ch (Igor Metz) } } I use such a beast since June '89. My configuration is } } Sun Sparcstation-1 running the Xgo server } Bridge CS-100 TCP/IP Terminal Server } Optimax 200 connected to CS-100 at 19200 Baud } } My opinion: } } - the Optimax is good enough for my daily work (editing, compiling, debugging, } reading news and mail). } - the screen is not very large, so it doesn't use too much space on my desk. } Disadvantage: it's not practical to have more than 4 open windows. } You'll have trouble with applications which need large windows (e.g. } Framemaker) since they don't fit on the screen. } - when I use the Sun console for many hours, I always get problems with my } eyes. Not so with the Optimax. } - the Optimax is very slow with bitmapped graphics or with applications which } need lots of fonts. Connecting the at 57k Baud would speed this up! } Font caching would also be very nice. Maybe they'll implement it in a } future version. } - The X Server running on my Sparcstation doesn't use very much resources. [ 'ps' output for Igor's machine omitted ... ] } Conclusion: } The Optimax is a reasonable X terminal if you can't afford an expensive } Ethernet based X Terminal or if you don't have Ethernet installed. } From: wood%lavc3.dnet@smithkline.com > (Bill Wood, SmithKline&French R&D, 215-270-5163) } } Tim, } } We have had Graphons for years, and recently arranged to have them all } upgraded to X. We are planning to buy some hardware, possibly the } new IBM Risc machines, to run the Graphon server and also X clients } like terminals, window managers, word processing, etc. Like you, } we don't have ethernet everywhere, plus the graphons are so cheap! } In fact, I regularly use one running X at home at 9600 baud over a modem } (Microcom AX/9624c). } } We have found the serial line speed of the Graphons to be remarkably good, } as long as you aren't doing alot of image work. We also have not found } a word processor that is fast enough at 19200 baud, although 38400 might be } ok. The exception is ArborText, which is not wysiwyg (it does have a preview } mode). You can use something like Decwrite or Framemaker, but it is slower } than you would like. } } Otherwise, we love the terminals and are pursuing a major commitment to them } here. } From: simpson@xylogics.com (Reid Simpson x251) } } Hi, Tim } (Sorry about the last message... did it linewrap too much?) } } We have three here at Xylogics (and two NCDs). The GraphOn has a nice small } footprint, works like an ASCII terminal until you want it to be an X terminal } and is relatively inexpensive. These are the good features. The bad features } are that it has a small screen (not enough pixels for two 80 column windows } with legible fonts to be placed side by side on the tube) and that each tube } requires a process on the host (the server code runs on the host not on the } terminal. The serial link is fine for text windows and some graphics, but } bitmap loads are really noticable. Don't expect to run this at anything less } than 9600 and get any work done. } } We have one that travels with our Annex terminal server to the marketing } roadshows, one that sits on a manager's desk (and he loves it) and one that } will be used to replace three Wyse tubes in our firmware engineering lab } (when it comes back from repair for a CRT powersupply heat problem). } } I prefer my 19" NCD, though 8^) } From: Peter Robinson <hpcvlx!peter@hp-pcd.cv.hp.com> } } Tim, } } I've had a GraphOn at home for the past few weeks. A few comments... } } 1. Line speed is definitely the limiting factor. I ran some performance } test on a hardwired line at 9.6, 19.2, and 38.4 Kb. Each time I doubled } the line speed, the performance doubled, particularly with vector ops. } At 38.4Kb the text glyph blitting could not keep up with the serial line } and some flow control activated. } } I use a Multi-Tech V.32 modem which can be cranked up to 19.2 Kb. The } phone line runs at 9.6, but the modem uses compression techniques which } give an effective throughput of about 17Kb. At 9.6 Kb the terminal is } marginally useful. I had to alter my typical operating style for this } speed. At 19.2, things are much better. } } 2. The server automatically does backing store and save-unders for } static windows. This is a big win when exposing the window as the } text doesn't need to come down the serial line again. If the window } is iconified or changed while obscured, the backing store is deleted. } } *** Be sure to order the extra 512KB of memory if you want to use this *** } } 3. The basic resolution of the screen is 800x600. You can put the server } in an 800x920 mode which creates a virtual screen taller than the actual } display. Driving the sprite to the bottom of the screen scrolls it up. } This is quite fast. } } } Now, what I don't like... } } 1. The keyboard layout is DEC oriented. That's ok for DEC oriented people, but } I use HP equipment at work and the layouts are enough different as to be } annoying. Check the GraphOn layout against the one you typically use and } see if the differences will bother yoy. } } 2. The keyboard is quite wide. If you place the qwerty keypad in front of the } display, the mouse ends up out in right field. It takes a LONG reach to get } over to it. } } 3. While performance is adequate, it is not blazing. It is quite acceptible for } serial/modem use, but if you have a LAN available, I'd look at LAN based } X-terminals. } } For me, the GraphOn is great for working at home. It allows me to do "X" things } even if it is slower than at work. It might be nice to have color and higher } resolution, but for now, the cost and performance are adequate. } From: aqdata!sullivan@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael T. Sullivan) } } Maybe not the portability you need. The GraphOn terminals make their } serial connection to a host that has special software on it. This software } converts X-server instructions that would normally go to a monitor into } a proprietary protocol that can be quickly sent over a serial line to } a GraphOn terminal. This is important to remember: what goes over the } serial line is a proprietary protocol generated by GraphOn software. If } you want to connect a GraphOn terminal to a particular hardware platform } you must make sure that the GraphOn software has been ported to it. If not, } you're out of luck. I recently asked if their software had been ported } to 386 Unix and was told that not only hasn't it been but that there were } no plans to port it. This type of thing should be an important consideration } for you. } From: dac@arson.cray.com (Dave Cahlander) } } I'm also interested in the GraphOn X Terminals. I tried } one from home and thought that it did a good job. (Don't } paint large pixmaps over 2400 baud). } } I'm interested in hearing what you hear. Finally, I recieved 3 copies of an article by Leith (Casey) Leedom. This has appeared in comp.windows.x previously, and was also printed in an issue of XNextEvent (the newsletter of the X User's Group) I am told. Since that article is very long, I will not copy it again (if anyone wants a copy, send me an Email request and I'll send you one). In general, it describes some of the features available, and presents a good overall review of the unit. Casey concludes that the OptiMax is a good, inexpensive, alternative to an X Workstation or more costly networked X Terminal. >>>>>>>>>> Well, there you have it. Based on the above comments, I believe the GraphOn terminals would be a good fit for us for the following reasons: 1) Inexpensive (we do have a limited budget, after all) 2) Uses serial lines (we have no in-house network ... yet) 3) Good for text / not so great for graphics (our applications are mainly text based, so this should not be a problem) Thanks again for all your comments. They are appreciated. -- Tim -- Tim Northrup +------------------------------------------+ +---------------------------------+ GEnie: T.Northrup | UUCP: uunet!crdgw1!brspyr1!tim | Air Warrior: "Duke" | ARPA: tim@brspyr1.BRS.Com +------------------------------------------+