laukee@canon.UUCP (David Lau-Kee) (12/11/89)
Sun X11/NeWS doesn't run on a CG8 or CG9 24-bit framebuffer. (Not that the X side could do much with 24-bits anyway!) Does anyone know of a version of NeWS which will support this hardware? Apparently Sun "currently have no plans" to support CG8-9 in XNeWS... is anyone else considering a port? ------------- David Lau-Kee Canon Research Centre Europe, 19/20 Frederick Sanger Rd, Surrey Research Park, Guildford, Surrey, GU25YD, UK. NRS: laukee@uk.co.canon, ARPA: laukee%canon@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk UUCP: laukee@canon.uucp, PATH: ..!mcsun!ukc!uos-ee!canon!laukee Tel: +44 (0) 483 574325 Fax: +44 (0) 483 574360
rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (12/11/89)
Not that the X side could do much with 24-bits anyway! What kind of garbage is this? The X protocol supports up to 32 bits per pixel. There are several vendors shipping X on deep framebuffers.
hugh@hoptoad.uucp (Hugh Daniel) (12/12/89)
How many folks are in need of XNeWS running on CG8's and CG9's?
||ugh Daniel
hugh@toad.com Grasshopper Group, +1 415/668-5998
hugh@xanadu.com 210 Clayton ST San Francisco CA94117
rws@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (12/16/89)
Is it possible that the NeWS side of XNeWS could would run in 24bits pretty much as-is, whereas the X side would require a little bit more work, or is it the case that the port would be as difficult for both sides (or is there effectively only one thing to port)? I don't really know how X11/NeWS is implemented internally. I thought both halves were built on top of a common graphic library, in which the X side wouldn't take much additional work.
laukee@canon.UUCP (12/16/89)
> > >> Not that the X side could do much with 24-bits anyway! > >What kind of garbage is this? The X protocol supports up to 32 bits per >pixel. There are several vendors shipping X on deep framebuffers. > Woah, sore spot there? Let me be precise: for "X side" substitute "X side of merged server as implemented in Sun OpenWindows 1.0" I'm talking about XNeWS here. Are Sun shipping XNeWS for deep framebuffers?? I think not, (but maybe that's garbage too :^]). Is it possible that the NeWS side of XNeWS could would run in 24bits pretty much as-is, whereas the X side would require a little bit more work, or is it the case that the port would be as difficult for both sides (or is there effectively only one thing to port)? Information from a contact at Sun indicated that the NeWS side would be easy compared with the X side. Maybe you know different! -- David Lau-Kee
jg@max.crl.dec.com (Jim Gettys) (12/17/89)
X runs just fine on deep frame buffers. My company, among others, has been shipping X servers running on deep frame buffers for a long time (way over a year, in the case of the VS8000). If the X11/NeWS server won't run on deep frame buffers, that's its fault, not X or the X protocol. Jim Gettys Digital Equipment Corporation Cambridge Research Laboratory
robin@SUN.COM (Robin Schaufler) (12/20/89)
From NeWS-makers-request@cs.UMD.EDU Sat Dec 16 05:31:35 1989 To: NeWS-makers@brillig.umd.edu Subject: Re: NeWS on a CG8-9 From: rws@expo.lcs.mit.edu (Bob Scheifler) Sender: NeWS-makers-request@brillig.umd.edu (Don Hopkins) Is it possible that the NeWS side of XNeWS could would run in 24bits pretty much as-is, whereas the X side would require a little bit more work, or is it the case that the port would be as difficult for both sides (or is there effectively only one thing to port)? > I don't really know how X11/NeWS is implemented internally. I thought both > halves were built on top of a common graphic library, in which the X side > wouldn't take much additional work. Yes, Bob is correct. You get 2 ports for the effort of one. However, since we didn't have any 24 bit hardware while xnews 1.0 was being developed, we don't know whether the X-specific server code is correct. -- Robin