rosalia@noether.UUCP (Mark Galassi) (05/02/89)
I found out that Silicon Graphics gives you the distribution of X
windows for free, but charges you a certain monthly amount (in our
case $15/month).
Here is what I was wondering:
1. can one get the tape and not the support, thus not having access
to the hotline etc?
OR
2. does the X distribution from MIT have the drivers and other
special things for the personal IRIS?
If either of these were the case, we would be willing to get X
without the support from SGI.
Thank you very much,
--
{These opinions are mine, and should be everybody else's :-)}
Mark Galassi
rosalia@mozart.UUCP rosalia@sunysbnp.BITNET
rosalia@noether.UUCP rosalia@noether.sunysb.edu SERRER@SYSLAB.NRC.CA (Martin Serrer - Systems Manager) (05/02/89)
Mark Galassi writes... >I found out that Silicon Graphics gives you the distribution of X >windows for free, but charges you a certain monthly amount (in our >case $15/month). We have a cluster of 16 VAXstations (running VMS and DECWindows) could we run remote DECWindows type applications on our IRIS 4D50/GT using SGI's X-windows? Would it use the 4DDN network software as the transmission protocol or would we need TCP/IP for the VAXen? Any info would be greatly appreciated. Martin Serrer Systems Lab. DME/NRC Ottawa serrer@syslab.nrc.ca (BITNET)
les@unicads.UUCP (Les Milash) (05/02/89)
In article <237@noether.UUCP> rosalia@noether.UUCP (Mark Galassi) writes: >I found out that Silicon Graphics gives you the distribution of X >windows for free, but charges you a certain monthly amount (in our >case $15/month). speaking for myself only { we're using the MIT stuff, with some patches that were supposedly authored by SGI folks that our sysop ftp'd down from some machine at MIT, and it doesn't exactly seem "X compilant" to me. largely, but the differences don't look like they're gonna be one-line changes to fix. that's with the 4D-70G as the server. using it on the client side with a "known good" server, things are fine, and of course those R2000's are quick application servers. but man! when it does work does it ever work fast!!! BraVo! Running an app on a Sun4 with a 4D drawing your lines! Yes yes! } if anybody (from SGI?) can tell me that it's cause i'm stupid and there's some better version i ought to be using PLEASE DO SO. Les Milash Unicad Inc. 303-443-6961
eap@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Eric Pearce) (05/03/89)
I just installed the X source tape we got from SGI. I don't know if
we are paying for it or not. It seems to have the same problems as
the one I got off expo.lcs.mit.edu, but I can't verify that they are
the same at the moment. When compiling the server, it will complain
about a missing "/usr/include/bitmap.h" when doing the "server/ddx/sgi/4d"
directory. I managed to get this file from someone who had an older
release of IRIX (still 3.1 though) on their IRIS personal.
Some other things you need to fix are:
server/ddx/sgi/4d/sgigl.c & sgiio.c change "WINSHUT" to "WINCLOSE"
clients/xinit/xinit.c - It could not find "setpriority"
clients/xdm/daemon.c - use the bsd'ish "(void) ioctl (i, TIOCNOTTY,0)"
instead of "(void) ioctl(i, TIOCTTY, &zero)"
also was missing "sys/ptyio.h".
I'll put these in a patch file when I get them all together, but
that should be enough to get you going for the moment.
It looks like I got farther than the person who made the sgi tape,
as they still had these errors in their log file from when they
installed it.
I was rather disappointed in it once I got it running. This is on
an IRIS "power series" GT and it was slower than a Sun 3/50 for most
of the clients and demos. "ico" runs at a good clip, but that's
about it. The server seems to crap out often. I also had problems
with resizing the windows. I found it useful to be able to xterm
into it from my Sun though.
If anybody has a "fast" X11R3 running on their Sgi, I would like to
hear about it.
(In all fairness, I have not asked SGI about these problems yet).
-e
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Pearce ARPANET eap@bu-it.bu.edu
Boston University Information Technology CSNET eap%bu-it@bu-cs
111 Cummington Street JNET jnet%"ep@buenga"
Boston MA 02215 UUCP !harvard!bu-cs!bu-it!eap
617-353-2780 voice 617-353-6260 fax BITNET ep@buengamah@hpuviea.UUCP (Michael Haberler) (05/03/89)
From article <237@noether.UUCP>, by rosalia@noether.UUCP (Mark Galassi): > I found out that Silicon Graphics gives you the distribution of X > windows for free, but charges you a certain monthly amount (in our > case $15/month). I think the worldwide transmission cost for your query would cover a couple of years of SGI support. Go sign up. :-) -michael -- Michael Haberler mah@hpuviea.uucp Hewlett-Packard Austria GmbH, ...mcvax!tuvie!hpuviea!mah Lieblgasse 1 ...hplabs!hpbbn!hpuviea!mah A-1220 Vienna, Austria Tel: (0043) (222) 2500 x412 (9-18 CET)
jim@thrush.Stanford.EDU (Jim Helman) (05/03/89)
> [ list of problems compiling sgi's X source tape] > > It looks like I got farther than the person who made the sgi tape, > as they still had these errors in their log file from when they > installed it. We received both a source and a binary tape from SGI. I'll admit that I haven't tried to recompile it. The only problems we've had are that the bell rings too long and too loudly and that when a window is resized the client doesn't seem to get any notification. The performance is tolerable on our 4D80/GT, better than X11R3 + purdue speedups our Sun-3/260C anyway. "ico" runs fast on the 4D because it's drawing line segments. Rasterops like scrolling windows are rather slow, but still very much faster than the release that came with the previous release of Foresight. Overall it's a big improvement over that version. -jim
msc@ramoth.SGI.COM (Mark Callow) (05/05/89)
In article <30571@bu-cs.BU.EDU>, eap@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Eric Pearce) writes: > > I just installed the X source tape we got from SGI. I don't know if > we are paying for it or not. It seems to have the same problems as > the one I got off expo.lcs.mit.edu, but I can't verify that they are Source tape??? Hmmm.. I'm not sure what tape you are talking about. We have been sending out an X Window *binary* on special request at no charge. This tape is a compiled version of the stuff we put in the R3 contrib directory. We were aware of the build problems and we posted a set of patches to this newsgroup as well as to the consortium. > I was rather disappointed in it once I got it running. This is on > an IRIS "power series" GT and it was slower than a Sun 3/50 for most > of the clients and demos. "ico" runs at a good clip, but that's > about it. The server seems to crap out often. I also had problems > with resizing the windows. I found it useful to be able to xterm > into it from my Sun though. > > If anybody has a "fast" X11R3 running on their Sgi, I would like to > hear about it. > We only became members of the X Consortium a very few weeks before R3 was released. The server you have is based on the infamous cfb code with just enough changes to make it run on an Iris 4D. That's all we had time or since we wanted to get it on the R3 tape. As you may be aware X was not designed with real graphics machines in mind. It takes substantial work to make it fully utilize, where the imaging model lets it, the 4D hardware. We have been doing the work. The about to be released (within 3-4 weeks) Irix 4D1-3.1G software release includes a new X server that is anywhere from 5 to 100 times faster than the one you have now. Our performance comes at or near the top of the recently posted X benchmark table. We have applied over 130 MIT patches and fixed a number of our own bugs. I think you will be more than satisfied with its performance. Further performance improvements will come with Irix 4D1-3.2. The currently released microcode for the "Power Series" GTX (*not GT*) graphics has very poor performance on moving small spans of pixels to the screen. (It has great performance for large spans.) X mostly deals with small spans so it suffers. New microcode that fixes the problem is also in Irix 4D1-3.1G. On present SGI hardware XOR performance is at best adequate. We therefore recommend you run our window manager which does rubberbanding in the overlay planes (it's written in PostScript, but that's another story) rather than something like uwm which uses xor all over the place. > (In all fairness, I have not asked SGI about these problems yet). > I'm glad you said that. -- -Mark
jgarb@CSD360B.ERIM.ORG (Joe Garbarino) (05/05/89)
In article <32066@sgi.SGI.COM>, Mark Callow of SGI writes concerning SGI X Window performance: > faster than the one you have now. Our performance comes at or near the > top of the recently posted X benchmark table. We have applied over 130 > MIT patches and fixed a number of our own bugs. I think you will be > more than satisfied with its performance. Further performance... > On present SGI hardware XOR performance is at best adequate. We therefore > recommend you run our window manager which does rubberbanding in the overlay > planes (it's written in PostScript, but that's another story) rather > than something like uwm which uses xor all over the place. For our purposes, the two above statements are in conflict. One of the important points about the X Window System is that it allows the user to become familiar with one mode of interaction with the windowing environment. One of the more important elements of the windowing environment is the window manager. If the window manager is not consistent between platforms, a major component of the X portability is lost. I can move between our other workstations, and even to my X terminal, and still count on being able to use the same mouse/keyboard strokes for window manager functions. I also get to standardize on the window manager I like best, not being forced to use the window manager a machine's manufacturer gives me. Until this XOR/window manager problem is solved, a major piece of SGI's X Window System implementation is severely inadequate, and I will not be satisfied with its performance. Will there be an upgrade to current equipment to supply the missing hardware XOR function? Joe Garbarino ERIM P.O. Box 8618 Ann Arbor, Mi. 48107 (313)994-1200 x2508 jgarb@csd360b.erim.org
msc@ramoth.SGI.COM (Mark Callow) (05/06/89)
In article <237@noether.UUCP>, rosalia@noether.UUCP (Mark Galassi) writes: > I found out that Silicon Graphics gives you the distribution of X > windows for free, but charges you a certain monthly amount (in our > case $15/month). > As far as I know the $15 is for support. > Here is what I was wondering: > > 1. can one get the tape and not the support, thus not having access > to the hotline etc? Ask your salesman or customer support. > > OR > > 2. does the X distribution from MIT have the drivers and other > special things for the personal IRIS? Yes and no. The X distribution has a verson of the drivers for SGI. However the product quality X we are on the verge of releasing (in Irix 4D1-3.1G) is very different and very much superior. We have put a lot of work into it and it runs anywhere from 5 to 100 times faster than the stuff we contributed to the MIT tape last November. It also has several hundred official patches and other bug fixes. -- -Mark
msc@ramoth.SGI.COM (Mark Callow) (05/06/89)
In article <8905021012.aa14083@SMOKE.BRL.MIL>, SERRER@SYSLAB.NRC.CA (Martin Serrer - Systems Manager) writes: > We have a cluster of 16 VAXstations (running VMS and DECWindows) could we run > remote DECWindows type applications on our IRIS 4D50/GT using SGI's X-windows? > Would it use the 4DDN network software as the transmission protocol or would > we need TCP/IP for the VAXen? > Any info would be greatly appreciated. We support the standard X protocol. If DECWindows uses standard X protocol you should be in good shape. You will need TCP/IP for your vaxen. -- -Mark
msc@ramoth.SGI.COM (Mark Callow) (05/09/89)
In article <8905051509.AA09442@csd360b.erim.org>, jgarb@CSD360B.ERIM.ORG (Joe Garbarino) writes: > > I can move between our other workstations, and even to my X terminal, and > still count on being able to use the same mouse/keyboard strokes for window > manager functions. I also get to standardize on the window manager I like > best, not being forced to use the window manager a machine's manufacturer > gives me. I didn't say you couldn't run your favourite window manager. I simply made a recommendation. Following it or not is entirely your choice. > > Until this XOR/window manager problem is solved, a major piece of SGI's X > Window System implementation is severely inadequate, and I will not be > satisfied with its performance. I said the performance was "adequate". How you translate that to "severely inadequate" without even having seen it is beyond me. uwm is usable. > > Will there be an upgrade to current equipment to supply the missing > hardware XOR function? Upgrades may be made available for some current equipment. The subject is still under discussion. -Mark -- -Mark