mjb@visual.UUCP (01/05/90)
We will be showing a gray-scale (2 planes) X terminal at Uniforum. We are looking for some flashy demo programs to help people understand that this configuration will be the minimally acceptable user interface vehicle of the future, ergonomics-wise. Please mail me pointers to any Motif-style 3D-look-and-feeling applications you know of, or any other programs that cry out for a couple of shades of gray. Thanks. Mike Braca Visual Technology (508)836-4400 uunet!visual!mjb
john@acorn.co.uk (John Bowler) (01/05/90)
In article <9001050139.AA21346@bird.visual.uu.net> mjb@visual.UUCP writes: >We will be showing a gray-scale (2 planes) X terminal at Uniforum. Interesting. What pixmap format do you use? I have a server which supports visuals with depths of 1,2,4 and 8 (plus pixmaps of depth 16,24,32), however I ran into the problem with depth 2 that the only valid bits-per-pixel values are {1,4,8,16,24,32} - ie no 2! The ``correct'' solution is to use 4, but this means that there is less advantage in using a depth of 2 - the internal implementation of the (my) ddx layer means that it would be inconvenient using a bits-per-pixel of 4 with an *internal* bits-per-pixel of 2 (ok, I admit that it is only nessary to do the conversion at the GetImage/PutImage interface, but this is still a significant amount of work for what seemed like little gain). Does anyone know how any X implementations for the NeXT workstation handle this problem? My current solution is not to support depth 2 by default, and when it is supported the bits-per-pixel is 2! Obviously this doesn't conform to the protocol. Are any other vendors thinking of depth 2 support? Why were the pixmap *formats* restricted to those 6 values, while the depths were left unrestricted? Is it an attempt to reduce the work required in a general purpose application? If so why was format 2 excluded - historical reasons? John Bowler (jbowler@acorn.co.uk)
black@masscomp.ccur.com (Sam Black) (01/06/90)
In article <1340@acorn.co.uk> john@acorn.UUCP (John Bowler) writes: >Are any other vendors thinking of depth 2 support? We support a depth 2 visual (and corresponding PIXMAPs) for our overlay planes. It's represented as 2 bits per pixel, padded to longword boundaries (8 pixels per longword). >Why were the pixmap *formats* restricted to those 6 values, while the >depths were left unrestricted? Pixmap formats are only restricted by your imagination :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm pink, therefore I'm Spam. ___________ / ________/__ ...!{decvax,uunet}!masscomp!black /__/_______/ / black@westford.ccur.com Concurrent /__________/ Computer Corporation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------