wright@hsi.UUCP (Gary Wright) (10/01/88)
Ok, I have seen some discussion about X terminals and have even seen some actual hardware but I haven't seen much talk about a NeWS terminal. Does anyone know of such a beast? A frequent complaint about NeWS is that it is slow. Separating the client and server to two different processors and using SLIP would seem to be the ideal set up for NeWS. I would guess that NeWS would even run better than X in this configuration because of the smaller amount of data that needs to go across the link. This definitely seems they way to go. A workstation per person is just overkill (technically and financially) for many applications that could really benefit from the use of windows. -- Gary Wright ...!uunet!hsi!wright Health Systems International wright@hsi.uu.net
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (10/04/88)
In article <178@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>, wright@hsi.UUCP (Gary Wright) writes: > Ok, I have seen some discussion about X terminals and have even seen > some actual hardware but I haven't seen much talk about a NeWS > terminal. Does anyone know of such a beast? > I would guess that NeWS would even run better than X in this > configuration because of the smaller amount of data that needs to go > across the link. But... NeWS requires a more powerful processor and more memory than X. Note: I like NeWS. -- Robert Claeson, ERBE DATA AB, P.O. Box 77, S-175 22 Jarfalla, Sweden Tel: +46 758-202 50 Fax: +46 758-197 20 Email: robert@pvab.se (soon rclaeson@erbe.se)
kositch@hpdtl.HP.COM (Dan C. Kositch) (10/05/88)
/ hpdtl:comp.windows.x / wright@hsi.UUCP (Gary Wright) / 2:41 pm Sep 30, 1988 / Ok, I have seen some discussion about X terminals and have even seen some actual hardware but I haven't seen much talk about a NeWS terminal. Does anyone know of such a beast? A frequent complaint about NeWS is that it is slow. Separating the client and server to two different processors and using SLIP would seem to be the ideal set up for NeWS. I would guess that NeWS would even run better than X in this configuration because of the smaller amount of data that needs to go across the link. This definitely seems they way to go. A workstation per person is just overkill (technically and financially) for many applications that could really benefit from the use of windows. -- Gary Wright ...!uunet!hsi!wright Health Systems International wright@hsi.uu.net ----------
wm@ogccse.ogc.edu (Wm Leler) (10/10/88)
>> Ok, I have seen some discussion about X terminals and have even seen >> some actual hardware but I haven't seen much talk about a NeWS >> terminal. Does anyone know of such a beast? > >> I would guess that NeWS would even run better than X in this >> configuration because of the smaller amount of data that needs to go >> across the link. There are some people at Queen Mary College (part of University College of London? -- in the UK) that are working on an inexpensive NeWS terminal. Their hardware is transputer based, not for the parallelism, per se, but for the raw speed, low cost, and other advantages of the transputer. They want to make it cheap enough so that one might buy it for home and run it over a 2400 baud phone line, but it also includes ethernet. William Roberts at QMC also has an archive of interesting NeWS and PostScript software. He was the original author of the "eye that tracks the mouse position" demo (among other things). Of course, any workstation that runs NeWS could be used as a NeWS terminal (such as a Sun, Cogent XTM, Silicon Graphics workstation, or Mac II) and given the continual decrease in the price of workstations (well, with the exception of the Mac :-), that might be a pretty good option soon. wm
irf@kuling.UUCP (Bo Thide) (10/12/88)
In article <1811@ogccse.ogc.edu> wm@ogccse.UUCP (Wm Leler) writes: >>> Ok, I have seen some discussion about X terminals and have even seen GraphOn has a series of hi-res terminals which are said to be usable as X displays. We have now 3 GO250 terminals and are egarely awaiting software from GraphOn to see whether this is true or not. The GO2xx series terminals use a quite efficient compress algorithm in order to increase the effective transfer speed of bitmaps etc. Max baud rate is 57600 but the compress trick can increase that by almost a factor of 10 sometimes. GO250 is VERY fast. I use mine over a 38400 line to my HP9000/350 without any problems - no terminfo/termcap delays are necessary. --Bo -- >>> Bo Thide', Swedish Institute of Space Physics, S-755 90 Uppsala, Sweden <<< Phone (+46) 18-300020. Telex: 76036 (IRFUPP S). UUCP: ..enea!kuling!irfu!bt