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