tyager@maxx.UUCP (Tom Yager) (05/06/90)
In article <269@uucs1.UUCP>, gaf@uucs1.UUCP (gaf) writes: > In article <1990Apr23.145255.19996@ico.isc.com> scottw@ico.isc.com (Scott Wiesner) writes: > > > >The next X release, 1.2, will support the Orchid board in 256 colors. > >The 256 color server is slower than the 16 color server, but for those > >times when a developer wants to try something out in 8 bit deep mode, > >or if you've got images you want to display, it's usable. > > I wonder if it's just the marketing folk who want to be able to *say* > they have a 256 color server (even if it's just barely usable). Marketing had nothing to do with it. If you want 256 colors from ISC's X, you can buy a board from Matrox or Pixelworks, or spring for an 8514/A-compatible card. ISC has had 256-color servers available since they introduced their X. > This is mostly a rhetorical question, but I have to wonder why a company > would expend time and money producing something which is only marginally > useful? The 16 color server works well, but isn't going to make anyone > sit up and get excited about its performance. A slower server, even > with 256 colors, might make someone wonder why they spent so much money. To each his own. I run Motif, which soaks up most of the map entries on a 4-plane server. I'd like to have 256 colors, when I want them, so that applications can have some colors of their own. Besides, I like being able to display 256-color GIFs and other colorful demos on my main system. As for performance, I still think ISC has done an excellent job with its VGA server. I doubt very much you could get better performance out of the hardware than ISC's engineers have (I could be wrong). Besides, not having seen a 256-color server in action, how can you call it "barely usable?" I don't think the 16-color VGA server will break any speed records, but I find it quite usable, even at 1024x768. I also have an accellerated system based on a Matrox PG-1281 and ISC's X Window, and that spits nails in terms of performance. I have no trouble "stepping down" from that to VGA. If everyone could afford a $3500 (or even $1500) graphics accellerator, I'd say you have a point: VGA is not the best vehicle for X Window. But it is worthwhile, and any extensions ISC or anyone dreams up to extend its usefulness are welcomed by me. Just one person's opinion... (ty) -- +--Tom Yager, Technical Editor, BYTE----Reviewer, UNIX World---------------+ | NET: decvax!maxx!tyager -or- uunet!bytepb!maxx!tyager | | I speak only for myself "UNIX: It's not a job, | +-------------------------------------it's a Jihad!" -co-worker------------+