ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) (04/06/91)
In article <SWANSONC.91Apr3183624@grendel3.acc.stolaf.edu> swansonc@acc.stolaf.edu (Chris Swanson) writes: >b&w X is only temporary with Amix. Right now the engineers at C= are >working on (and RSN will be shipping) a version of color X supporting >all of the Amiga resolutions/colors that use the specialized Amiga >graphics chips. This is all correct. black and white X11R3 was available in Amiga Unix 1.1. It supported normal and A2024 (Hedley) modes. This version of X also supported the A2410 (Lowell board). Amiga Unix Version 2.0 will have X11R4 whose port is quite a bit faster than the current release (%90-%100 faster). >Rumor has it that the color implimentation is about 4x faster than >the current b&w. This is not true. The native color implementation will be slower than the monochrome server. Sans magick, I don't see any way around this. I can see how a two bit plane X11R4 server could be just as fast as the X11R3 b&w server but that would probably be the limit. Pax, Keith -- Keith Gabryelski Advanced Products Group ag@amix.commodore.com ...!cbmvax!amix!ag
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (04/06/91)
In article <1641@amix.commodore.com> ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes: >In article <SWANSONC.91Apr3183624@grendel3.acc.stolaf.edu> >swansonc@acc.stolaf.edu (Chris Swanson) writes: >>Rumor has it that the color implimentation is about 4x faster than >>the current b&w. > >This is not true. The native color implementation will be slower than >the monochrome server. Sans magick, I don't see any way around this. If the X11R3 port was badly done (rushed, for example, to meet shipping deadlines) then this could be true. Or, if X11R4 were recoded in hand-optimized assembly language by Jez San, then it could be an order of magnitude faster in color than pcc- compiled X11R3. (I suppose that qualifies as "magick". :-) -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / ckp@grebyn.com \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (04/15/91)
In article <1641@amix.commodore.com> ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes: >>b&w X is only temporary with Amix. Right now the engineers at C= are >>working on (and RSN will be shipping) a version of color X supporting >>all of the Amiga resolutions/colors that use the specialized Amiga >>graphics chips. > >This is all correct. black and white X11R3 was available in Amiga >Unix 1.1. It supported normal and A2024 (Hedley) modes. This version >of X also supported the A2410 (Lowell board). > >Amiga Unix Version 2.0 will have X11R4 whose port is quite a bit faster >than the current release (%90-%100 faster). I (yesterday) got a chance to play with an A3000UX. They have them at Computer Showcase in San Francisco, I wandered in hoping for a chance to look at it and ended up spending ~ 4 hours helping them set it up with TCP/IP & NFS talking to an A2000. The X is exactly as slow as X11R3 is on 386 clones that I've worked with. That is, PAINful. Oh, and the screen is much too small (they didn't have an A2024 around so it was displaying on a 1950 ...). The speed improvement in moving to X11R4 is *extremely* believable. I saw an improvement like that when we made the R3->R4 change on our Sun workstations last summer. There will also be a big benefit from compiling everything with `gcc' (like they say they're going to do) since `gcc' is a really good compiler and specifically *shines* on 680x0's. There weren't many of the normal X utilities in /usr/X/bin. Assumably this will change in 2.0? Notice that everything is under /usr/X, like the Intel X11 I work with on 386 clones here. Normally X gets installed in /usr/bin/X11, /usr/lib/X11, etc. That's no biggie, really, but does it also have another `oddity' which the Intel X11 has. Namely: there is /usr/X/lib/xdaemon which runs all the time, which X programs consult for turning DISPLAY specifiers into a connection to a server. It does this by running a transport specific program (/usr/X/lib/net/<provider>/nameserver) to do the mapping. (The code to do all this is available in source in the MIT X11 R{3,4} distribution in a directory named "att-nameserver"). This may sound like a kinda weirdo way to things, especially since it's rather different from every/most other X implementations. But it's kinda nice since the X client doesn't need to concern itself with transport specific details -- simply by editting some configuration details into /usr/X/lib/Xconnections you can control which "nameserver" is used for each transport system. Be it StarLAN, TCP/IP, or ISO protocols. We couldn't figure a way to get "netstat" to display information about the ether card. "netstat -i" only showed it for the loopback device. AmigaDOS floppy disks can be read with "cat" but that's not very useful since it doesn't give you *files*. It should be a fairly simple manner for C= to provide filesystem drivers for AmigaDOS and MS-DOG file systems. Didn't get to try to get any idea of the actual speed of the system. The normal console screens "repainted" pretty fast in `vi'. But I think an AT&T 7300 (Unix PC) also repaints its screen that fast. It certainly seemed to be a complete Unix implementation... Unfortunately this didn't settle any of my doubts or thinking about which system I am going to buy. (I am looking to buy a "home workstation" sometime very soon y'see). *SIGH*, if only C= could be trusted to not screw this up ... ;-). David -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) (04/15/91)
In article <1991Apr6.034011.22156@grebyn.com> ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) writes: >In article <1641@amix.commodore.com> ag@amix.commodore.com (Keith Gabryelski) writes: >>This is not true. The native color implementation will be slower than >>the monochrome server. Sans magick, I don't see any way around this. > >If the X11R3 port was badly done (rushed, for example, to meet shipping >deadlines) then this could be true. Eh? Usually, Mr. Checkpoint, you're smarter than this. A color server *must* be slower than a monochrome server simply because a color server has more bits to shove around. Now, that's assuming equal situations. A color server running on an A2410 constitutes a very unequal situation since a lot of the server can/will be offloaded into the board & free up the main processor for Other Things. BTW, mentioning the 2410... A C= marketing feller (western area) demonstrated it running on Unix and X11R<something> at the latest FAUG meeting. The demonstration was less than satisfactory because 1) the display died 10 minutes into it, and 2) the only things he did was not at all fast. He loaded in a picture into the screen's background but that took ~ 2 minutes (veeery sloooow). Then he ran that normal X demo which draws a bunch of lines, pauses, clears the window, and loops. Because of that pause it was hard to get an idea of the speed ... Price: He wouldn't give a firm one but said < $1500. Now.. The street price of similar boards for PCs and Macs is much less than that, ~ $500 if memory serves right. The street price for 2410s had better be in that range ... When: Also didn't give a firm date. However he *strongly* implied < 2 months. Since this is C= do we double this? :-) Screen-Size: His demo was running at 1024x768 and he gave some lame excuse about it being "standard". I know quite well that the card is capable of 1024x1024, but will C= actually support this mode? I want a "work station" at home.. part of what this means is having a >1000x1000 size screen & I require being able to stack two 80 col by 66 line windows side by side. Monitor-Type: The demo monitor was $2000 and up around 20 inches. Obviously I don't wanna spend this much on a monitor so what options are there for use with a 2410, and will we know what they are before it comes out? Finally: Why think about this expensive route of buying a new system when I can get the screen I want with a used Sun3 .. they go for < $1000 over in misc.forsale.computers y'know. -- <- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> <- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> <- <- "MS-DOS? Where we're going we don't need MS-DOS." --Back To The Future
es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Ethan Solomita) (04/15/91)
In article <8834@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: > >A C= marketing feller (western area) demonstrated it running >on Unix and X11R<something> at the latest FAUG meeting. The >demonstration was less than satisfactory because 1) the display >died 10 minutes into it, and 2) the only things he did was not >at all fast. He loaded in a picture into the screen's background >but that took ~ 2 minutes (veeery sloooow). Then he ran that >normal X demo which draws a bunch of lines, pauses, clears the >window, and loops. Because of that pause it was hard to get >an idea of the speed ... > If the display had the same problem as the demo I saw, the background image was a gif file that had to be converted to a bitmap before being copied onto the display. Also, the lines demo I saw didn't pause/clear. -- Ethan Q: How many Comp Sci majors does it take to change a lightbulb A: None. It's a hardware problem.
jac@gandalf.llnl.gov (James A. Crotinger) (04/15/91)
david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: > Price: He wouldn't give a firm one but said < $1500. Now.. > The street price of similar boards for PCs and Macs is much > less than that, ~ $500 if memory serves right. The street > price for 2410s had better be in that range ... > Monitor-Type: The demo monitor was $2000 and up around 20 inches. > Obviously I don't wanna spend this much on a monitor so what > options are there for use with a 2410, and will we know what > they are before it comes out? If it was a decent 20" color monitor, then it probably cost a lot more than two grand. Does anyone know what these Sony 16" monitors which Sun sells cost? Initially I thought they were too small [i.e. 1152x900 in 16" makes for fairly small fonts], but I've become very fond of mine. I'd rather have 19", but at least when we bought this SS1, the 19" monitor was about twice the cost of the 16" version. Has anyone tried hooking up a color X-Terminal to an A3000UX? It strikes me that this might end up being the cheapest way to get good color on the thing. We can apparently get color NCD X-Terminals with megapixel resolution for around $1800 [that probably is a UC or GSA price]. Of course a color X-Terminal wouldn't be very useful when running AmigaDOS. [Though I'm not sure how useful the 2410 will be either; I believe you can write X clients for the Amiga]. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- James A. Crotinger Lawrence Livermore Natl Lab // The above views jac@moonshine.llnl.gov P.O. Box 808; L-630 \\ // are mine and are not (415) 422-0259 Livermore CA 94550 \\/ necessarily those of LLNL
david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) (04/15/91)
In article <8834@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: >Price: He wouldn't give a firm one but said < $1500. Now.. >The street price of similar boards for PCs and Macs is much >less than that, ~ $500 if memory serves right. The street >price for 2410s had better be in that range ... 34010 boards for the PC do indeed go down to the $500-600 range. However, only the decent boards (for PC's) are about $1000-- they support 1024x768x256 in non-interlaced modes with a 50-60mhz processor... I havent the foggiest idea what the Mac market has in that line. >Screen-Size: His demo was running at 1024x768 and he gave some >lame excuse about it being "standard". I know quite well >that the card is capable of 1024x1024, but will C= actually >support this mode? I want a "work station" at home.. part of >what this means is having a >1000x1000 size screen & I require >being able to stack two 80 col by 66 line windows side by side. 1024x768 is a standard mode-- simply because it has a 1:1 aspect ratio. Other "standard" modes are 640x480, 800x600, and 1280x1024. I have never understood why the Amiga has all those really strange video modes with weird aspect ratios that 1024x1024 and 1200x480 (or something like that). The biggest problem with high resolutions like 1280x1024 (the next 'standard' resolution above ">1000x1000") is that a non-interlaced monitor is EXPENSIVE. With luck, you can find a NEC 4D for $800-900. Sure it's a 16" monitor, but I have yet to find a 1280x1024 monitor that's less-- if you know of one, please tell me I need one. ><- David Herron, an MMDF & WIN/MHS guy, <david@twg.com> ><- Formerly: David Herron -- NonResident E-Mail Hack <david@ms.uky.edu> -- David Kessner - david@kessner.denver.co.us | do { 1135 Fairfax, Denver CO 80220 (303) 377-1801 (p.m.) | . . . If you cant flame MS-DOS, who can you flame? | } while( jones);
ckp@grebyn.com (Checkpoint Technologies) (04/16/91)
In article <1991Apr15.080627.14567@kessner.denver.co.us> david@kessner.denver.co.us (David Kessner) writes: >The biggest problem with high resolutions like 1280x1024 (the next 'standard' >resolution above ">1000x1000") is that a non-interlaced monitor is EXPENSIVE. >With luck, you can find a NEC 4D for $800-900. Sure it's a 16" monitor, but >I have yet to find a 1280x1024 monitor that's less-- if you know of one, please >tell me I need one. The 4D can't do 1280 x 1024; only 1024 x 768. The NEC 5D can do 1280 x 1024, but costs more than twice what the 4D costs, best discount price I've seen is about $2200. And, incidentally, I have never seen the 4D for less than $950, and I've been looking. Tell me where to get one for $800! -- First comes the logo: C H E C K P O I N T T E C H N O L O G I E S / / ckp@grebyn.com \\ / / Then, the disclaimer: All expressed opinions are, indeed, opinions. \ / o Now for the witty part: I'm pink, therefore, I'm spam! \/