[comp.windows.x] X-windows under System V/386

rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (07/09/88)

DOS under UNIX (at least on 80386) is a reality.
I've been reading about X-windows, Open Look, etc. every week now.
They've got me half convinced that a signficant part of the PC 
world may indeed switch to UNIX instead of OS/2.

OK, so where's the beef?

I mean, there are all these 80386 machines out here, with extended
EGAs or VGAs and color monitors.  Yet, the only X-windows I've seen
advertised requires new display hardware, and half again the cost
of an 80386 system.  How's that going to move the world?  Maybe
a few developers -- but what about my father-in-law???

It sure seems to me that the road to follow for the PC market
is first to wean people from DOS to UNIX via VP/ix (or DOS-MERGE).
Then, you hit 'em with X-windows applications, and say bye-bye to
DOS forever.  But how's that going to happen if there isn't any
real low cost X-windows for extended EGA and VGA display adapters?
Sometime later, people move to large displays, if they care to. 

I'm sitting here, in wonder, at how the X11R2 tape could completely
ignore support for the biggest potential base of X-windows users:
80386 boxes, System V/386, with EGAs or VGAs.

Gosh, can I be the only one who thinks that $2xx UNIX ought to
have a $50 X-windows available for it?  Is it coming?  What?
you want ME to do it?  Aren't we supposed to be working on
applications by now?

-- 
		Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc.

(201) 542-3734 (voice, nights)   OR     (201) 389-8963 (voice, days)
uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP)			rick%pcrat.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)

brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) (07/09/88)

In article <524@pcrat.UUCP> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
>DOS under UNIX (at least on 80386) is a reality.
>I've been reading about X-windows, Open Look, etc. every week now.
>They've got me half convinced that a signficant part of the PC 
>world may indeed switch to UNIX instead of OS/2.
>
>OK, so where's the beef?
>
>I mean, there are all these 80386 machines out here, with extended
>EGAs or VGAs and color monitors.  Yet, the only X-windows I've seen
>advertised requires new display hardware, and half again the cost
>of an 80386 system.  How's that going to move the world?  Maybe
>a few developers -- but what about my father-in-law???
...

Well, I think the reason you don't see a lot of X use on any of the standard
PC hardware is size.  Have you ever tried using several windows on screen
that, for the most part, only supports 25 columns of 80 character text ?
Yes, I know that graphics can make the chars smaller and then you can get
more of them on the screen.  But, when you really look at what makes a sun
workstation a sun workstation, you'll see that a lot of it is the fact that
you can have several LARGE (read: useful) windows open at once.  I
personally have never liked *any* windowing package on the PC because the
windows are just too small.

-brian
-- 
Brian D. Cuthie                                 uunet!umbc3!cbw1!brian
Columbia, MD                                    brian@umbc3.umd.edu
"Captain, Captain! All the stars have gone out!"
"No, you fool, you've leaned on the button.  Turn the viewer back on!"

peter@ficc.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (07/11/88)

In article <191@cbw1.UUCP>, brian@cbw1.UUCP (Brian Cuthie) writes:
> Well, I think the reason you don't see a lot of X use on any of the standard
> PC hardware is size.  Have you ever tried using several windows on screen
> that, for the most part, only supports 25 columns of 80 character text ?

Yes, I regularly use Intuition on a CGA-resolution monitor, with a little
bit of overscan to get about 84 by 28. I generally put three seperate CLI
(shell, for those who don't have an Amiga) windows up, all in the same place,
then stick a few small windows running utility type programs around the
edge. It's very frustrating to come in to work and lose all that nice
functionality.

> Yes, I know that graphics can make the chars smaller and then you can get
> more of them on the screen.

Yes, if you got to an 8 by 8 matrix you can get more than enough of them up.
The Amiga supports a 640-by-400 mode, which is pretty close to your EGA
mode, and 8 by 8 characters on the 640-by-400 screen give you plenty of
room.

> But, when you really look at what makes a sun
> workstation a sun workstation, you'll see that a lot of it is the fact that
> you can have several LARGE (read: useful) windows open at once.

Yes, but you can get a complete 386 system for the price of the monitor and
graphics card you need to run that big a screen.
-- 
-- `-_-' Peter (have you hugged your wolf today) da Silva.
--   U   Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
-- Phone: 713-274-5180. CI$: 70216,1076. ICBM: 29 37 N / 95 36 W.
-- UUCP: {uunet,academ!uhnix1,bellcore!tness1}!sugar!ficc!peter.

dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (07/11/88)

In article <524@pcrat.UUCP>, rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
> OK, so where's the beef?
> I'm sitting here, in wonder, at how the X11R2 tape could completely
> ignore support for the biggest potential base of X-windows users:
> 80386 boxes, System V/386, with EGAs or VGAs.
> 
> Gosh, can I be the only one who thinks that $2xx UNIX ought to
> have a $50 X-windows available for it?  Is it coming?  What?
> you want ME to do it?  Aren't we supposed to be working on
> applications by now?
> 

Release 3.1 for standard System V/386 (Intel, AT&T, ISC, Bell Tech, etc) 
includes X (v 10.4) support for Hercules Monographic clones as well as 
a variety of standard hi-res displays.  All of the 3.2 / X11 stuff supports
VGA as well, so you'll be able to run Open Look as you see fit on nice cheap
cards as well as the razzle-dazzle stuff.

The current release of our X Window product also supports Hercules monographic
clones in the OEM version ... we've never released this as a binary 
distribution because we felt 3.1 was right around the corner.  Our plans are
to sell X for about $145 as a binary software add-on with prices coming down
as volume builds (we'd go a lot cheaper, but X is a very large system and the
cost of preparing 12 to 15 diskettes and many hundreds of pages of documentation
becomes a significant fraction of the cost).  Would anybody be interested in 
a "license only"/"media kit" split pricing on X to bring the X license below
$50?

- Dimitri Rotow, Bell Technologies

rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (07/13/88)

In article <240@belltec.UUCP> dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) writes:
>Release 3.1 for standard System V/386 (Intel, AT&T, ISC, Bell Tech, etc) 
>includes X (v 10.4) support for Hercules Monographic clones as well as 
>a variety of standard hi-res displays.  All of the 3.2 / X11 stuff supports
>VGA as well, so you'll be able to run Open Look as you see fit on nice cheap
>cards as well as the razzle-dazzle stuff.
>
>- Dimitri Rotow, Bell Technologies

What does this mean?  Is your X v10.4 or v11?  What software do you
mean by "Release 3.1" and "3.2"?  What is orderable?







-- 
		Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc.

(201) 542-3734 (voice, nights)   OR     (201) 389-8963 (voice, days)
uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP)			rick%pcrat.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)

dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) (07/15/88)

In article <526@pcrat.UUCP>, rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
> In article <240@belltec.UUCP> dar@belltec.UUCP (Dimitri Rotow) writes:
> >Release 3.1 for standard System V/386 (Intel, AT&T, ISC, Bell Tech, etc) 
> >includes X (v 10.4) support for Hercules Monographic clones as well as 
> >a variety of standard hi-res displays.  All of the 3.2 / X11 stuff supports
> >VGA as well, so you'll be able to run Open Look as you see fit on nice cheap
> >cards as well as the razzle-dazzle stuff.
> >
> >- Dimitri Rotow, Bell Technologies
> 
> What does this mean?  Is your X v10.4 or v11?  What software do you
> mean by "Release 3.1" and "3.2"?  What is orderable?
> 

UNIX releases are named from the Intel/AT&T distribution.  The current
distribution in common release is UNIX System V Release 3.0.  This is supported
with X version 10.4.  We give X away free with our Blit hi-res card.  If you
want it for the Herc or other cards on Release 3.0, you get to pay an OEM fee.

If you just buy the Blit, you get X free for use with System V or Interactive
386/ix; when SCO releases their '386 product with streams, we will ship X for
SCO as well ... the product currently runs just fine with their pre-release
Xenix '386 with streams.

Release 3.1 is now out and available to developers on a two-week lead time from
ordering.  Release 3.1 includes X version 10.4 with built-in support for Herc,
our Blit card, the Univision and Matrox cards.  X is free, except that the
media charge in 3.1 went up to cover the cost of the extra 10 floppies required
for X.  Release 3.1 I think is of primary interest to developers, since the
documentation for it must be ordered direct from AT&T at a cost of about $200.

Release 3.2 will go into Beta in August.  AT&T and Intel have sponsored a port
of X 11 which will be associated with 3.2.  This Intel/AT&T port supports our
Blit, the Herc, VGA and as many other '786 based cards (Univision, etc) as
Intel and we can cram into the release.  It is too early to tell how much X
will cost when purchased under the AT&T license; however, since AT&T's price
on UNIX for Release 3.2 will go up dramatically it is a safe bet that X will
have some AT&T royalty fee attached.

All of our products run right now with thhe AT&T releases of 3.1 and 3.2 for
their own 6386 systems.

It is unclear what path Interactive will take with 386/ix, so we cannot 
guarantee that X will run with their 3.1 or 3.2 version of 386/ix instantly; we
will track 386/ix as rapidly as we can.

I've posted this to the net since so many e mail messages have come in direct
asking the same question. 

fdr@joy.ksr.com (Franklin Reynolds) (07/15/88)

In article <191@cbw1.UUCP> brian@cbw1.UMD.EDU (Brian Cuthie) writes:
>In article <524@pcrat.UUCP> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
>>I mean, there are all these 80386 machines out here, with extended
>>EGAs or VGAs and color monitors.  Yet, the only X-windows I've seen
>>advertised requires new display hardware, and half again the cost
>>of an 80386 system.  How's that going to move the world?  Maybe
>>a few developers -- but what about my father-in-law???
>...
>
>Well, I think the reason you don't see a lot of X use on any of the standard
>PC hardware is size.  
>...

I have used window systems on Suns, Apollos, IBM PCs and Macs. It is true
that window systems are especially valuable on large screens but they are
also useful on systems with small screens.

Ultimately, the value on running X on your V/386 box will be access to X
based applications. Wordprocessors, spreadsheets, bitmap editors and drawing
programs that target X and UNIX should showing up by the end of this year
or the beginning of the next. These programs should be fairly portable and
the V/386 market would be much more appealing if X were a little more
available.

   Franklin Reynolds 			Kendall Square Research Corporation
   fdr@ksr.uucp				Building 300 / Hampshire Street
   ksr!fdr@harvard.harvard.edu 		One Kendall Square
   harvard!ksr!fdr 			Cambridge, Ma 02139