ajp2o@crocus.medicine.rochester.edu (Anthony J. Persechini) (05/30/91)
I will soon need another terminal for work on the 4D20G I have.
I would ideally like something that can be used for both
dgl and X applications. I would like to find out what kinds
of X terminal/dgl terminals are to be recommended for use
with the 4D. Also, if I set up an X terminal can I connect it
directly to the 4D somehow? The 4D is currently connected to
the ethernet, but I would like to avoid the cost of a second
connection if possible.
I would like to do this for <= $2000, so perhaps I will be limited
to a monochrome X terminal.
I will post a summary to the net.
--
Anthony Persechini Dept. of Physiology, Box 642
Assistant Professor School of Medicine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Rochester
ajp2o@crocus.medicine.rochester.edu Rochester, NY 14642karlton@fudge.wpd.sgi.com (Phil Karlton) (05/31/91)
In article <1991May30.123330@crocus.medicine.rochester.edu>, ajp2o@crocus.medicine.rochester.edu (Anthony J. Persechini) writes: I will soon need another terminal for work on the 4D20G I have. I would ideally like something that can be used for both dgl and X applications. The only devices that currently do both X and GL rendering are SGI workstations. I would like to find out what kinds of X terminal/dgl terminals are to be recommended for use with the 4D. The closest you could come would be to purchase a diskless workstation. For a fully competent X implementation, you would be best to wait until Irix 4.0 is shipping. Also, if I set up an X terminal can I connect it directly to the 4D somehow? The 4D is currently connected to the ethernet, but I would like to avoid the cost of a second connection if possible. X terminals typically come with their own ethernet connections. (The same would be true of a diskless SGI box.) You do not have to make any additions to your current hardware. I would like to do this for <= $2000, so perhaps I will be limited to a monochrome X terminal. Bitonal (1 bit deep) X terminals will never be able to do GL rendering. SGI has no current workstations in the $2K range. :-) PK -- Standard caveat: I am not an official SGI spokesperson. Phil Karlton karlton@sgi.com
stodola@orion.fccc.edu (Robert K. Stodola) (06/05/91)
In article <1991May31.155111.3039@zola.esd.sgi.com> karlton@sgi.com writes: >In article <1991May30.123330@crocus.medicine.rochester.edu>, > ajp2o@crocus.medicine.rochester.edu (Anthony J. Persechini) writes: > > I will soon need another terminal for work on the 4D20G I have. > I would ideally like something that can be used for both > dgl and X applications. > >The only devices that currently do both X and GL rendering are SGI >workstations. > > I would like to find out what kinds > of X terminal/dgl terminals are to be recommended for use > with the 4D. > >The closest you could come would be to purchase a diskless workstation. >For a fully competent X implementation, you would be best to wait until >Irix 4.0 is shipping. Just how competant will it be? Leaving aside how good an implementation of the X-server will the SGI head have, will the applications normally used to deal with the SGI run under X (as opposed to a GL window pasted into the spot left vacant by an empty X-window)? I have an X-terminal on my desk. I have this vision of connecting to the SGI system and seeing a lot of black windows there. > I would like to do this for <= $2000, so perhaps I will be limited > to a monochrome X terminal. > >Bitonal (1 bit deep) X terminals will never be able to do GL rendering. Does this imply that 8 (or greater) bit X-terminals (defined as anyone's X-terminal, not one with proprietary extensions), will be able to? >SGI has no current workstations in the $2K range. :-) I really didn't intend my comments to sound as strident as they appear on re-reading, but this is really the central issue guiding us to avoid GL (and hence SGI) in everything for which there is an alternative available. We do not intend to put a GL-terminal (diskless workstation or other construct which we are forever bound to purchase from SGI or SGI licensed source) on everybody's desk. So far, it appears to me that SGI is bringing X into the SGI world, rather than moving SGI into the X world. I'd be thrilled to hear arguments to the contrary.
rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) (06/08/91)
In article <1991Jun5.141951.18181@fccc.edu> stodola@orion.fccc.edu (Robert K. Stodola) writes: +--------------- | We do not intend to put a GL-terminal (diskless workstation or other construct | which we are forever bound to purchase from SGI or SGI licensed source) on | everybody's desk. So far, it appears to me that SGI is bringing X into the | SGI world, rather than moving SGI into the X world. I'd be thrilled to hear | arguments to the contrary. +--------------- GL (and mixed-mode GL+X) apps will continue to use GL imaging, and thus will have to display on GL-capable servers (running the dgld daemon). But other programs, e.g. "wsh", are pure X apps in 4.0, and you can use them remotely from non-SGI X servers. [I don't have a complete list of which is which.] The "move to X" was never intended to abandon the Geometry Engine technology or the GL protocol for speaking to it, any more than previous versions of Irix did GL rendering "through" NeWS/4Sight [which they didn't]. X is as pervasive in 4.0 as NeWS was previously, and perhaps even a bit more. But the X protocol simply does not (yet) support the 3-d imaging operations that make so many of the SGI apps what they are today. Until it (or some future protocol standard) does, we'll probably continue to have a mixed GL & X world. -Rob ----- Rob Warnock, MS-1L/515 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311