[comp.windows.x] X on a VT220?

gancarz@decvax.UUCP (Mike Gancarz) (04/14/87)

In article <> len@geac.UUCP (Leonard Vanek) writes:
>
>Mike, would your twm work on our Vax 8650 -- assuming that I had
>a vt220 X server, of course?
>

Twm does not use a mouse.  And it was developed on a VAX.

>By the way, does anyone have such a server? I have had a go at
>cutting out the graphic and mouse dependent parts of the X11
>protocol, but have not attempted an implementation because I do
>not have version 11 of X.

Let me ask a (perhaps foolish) question:  Why would you want to port
X to a VT220?  An X implementation on a VT220 is likely to suffer
because of bandwidth, resolution, etc.  If you sold the VT220's
to an MIS shop and purchased bitmapped terminals (cheap nowadays) or
diskless workstations (not so cheap--yet), the relative ease of the
port would more than make up the cost differential.

Of course, running a VT220-based X server inside a VT220 terminal emulator
running on a workstation with a "real" X implemenation would be an
interesting curioddity...

--Mike

Rick.Busdiecker@H.CS.CMU.EDU.UUCP (04/17/87)

    Let me ask a (perhaps foolish) question:  Why would you want to port
    X to a VT220?  An X implementation on a VT220 is likely to suffer
    because of bandwidth, resolution, etc.  If you sold the VT220's
    to an MIS shop and purchased bitmapped terminals (cheap nowadays) or
    diskless workstations (not so cheap--yet), the relative ease of the
    port would more than make up the cost differential.
    
How cheap is cheap?  In other words, what's the cheapest thing that one
could buy to use as a bitmap terminal to run X applications using a
modem to a Vax or RT?

			Rick

jimomura@lsuc.UUCP (04/30/87)

In article <545682039.rfb@h.cs.cmu.edu> Rick.Busdiecker@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>    

...

>How cheap is cheap?  In other words, what's the cheapest thing that one
>could buy to use as a bitmap terminal to run X applications using a
>modem to a Vax or RT?


     For 640 * 400 monochrome you could use the Atari 520ST.  You should
be able to put a fairly good terminal into a ROM cartridge.  For more
versatility, you could an Atari 1040ST.  That way you could run some of
TOS software locally and have some local storage.

     for 640 * 196 (4 Color display) you could run a Radio Shack Color
Computer.

     The new Amiga 500 would also make a nice "terminal".  Like the 1040ST
it has a contained floppy which makes for less clutter.

Cheers! -- Jim O.

-- 
Jim Omura, 2A King George's Drive, Toronto, (416) 652-3880
ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!jimomura
Byte Information eXchange: jimomura