| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 11.1 | Notes from X Tech Conference | LDP::GABRIEL | Daylight come an me wanna go home | Thu Jan 26 1989 16:48 | 187 |
|
I was at the X Window System Technical Conference at MIT these past
few days and one of the talks was from Visual Technology. I took
some notes and have tried to summarize some of their slides. It was
a very NON technical talk and NOT very well received by the HIGHLY
technical audience that was present. If the moderator feels this
is not the appropriate place for this reply, plese feel free to get
rid of it. The notes are reprinted WITHOUT the permission of the
speaker or VISUAL TECHNOLOGY.
-Joe Gabriel-
- X TERMINAL ISSUES -
A Presentation by VISUAL TECHNOLOGY at the X Windows
Technical Conference.
AN X TERMINAL
o Must have X server on board
o Must have network connection
o NO LOCAL DISK
o NO VIRTUAL MEMORY
o NO user program execution (just runs the X server on board)
GOALS
o Full functionality at low cost
o Easy to administrate
o Centralized resources ??
MARKET FOR X TERMINALS
As I'm sure you know, the MARKET DOES exist for this kind of
terminal. He put up a slide with some impressive market studies.
ISSUES !!
o Limited memory
o Host Loading
o Network Loading
o Terminal performance
o Security problems
MEMORY
o Low end X terminals will FREQUENTLY run out of memory
o Currently, there are NO recovery mechanisms in X to recover
from not having enough memory.
o There is no EASY solution
HOST LOADING
o How many X terminals can the host support
o Need to characterize host loading by application mix
o How does lack of local clients affect host loading..
VISUAL TECHNOLOGY currently is testing X Terminals
at Purdue Univ and will publish a report of this
testing later in the year.
NETWORK LOADING
o How many X terminals on the Ethernet
o Network load characteristics
o Potential problems with gateways
PERFORMANCE
o The sample server from MIT (X11) is designed for
- corerectness
- portability
- not speed
o Should consider reworking the graphics alogorithm for lower
performance platforms.
SECURITY
o User can bring down the network
o X Terminal vulnerable to malicious users
STANDARDS NEEDED
o Font access
o Initial connection
o Serial line X
o Alternate I/O devices
FONT ACCESS
o Small number of fonts in terminal
o Load the rest via network file transfer (FTP)
o Have a font server program
INITIAL CONNECTION
o LOGIN propmt ??
o Call up a local terminal emulator ??
o Call out to remote X display manager deamon to start ??
Third method is preferred one
SERIAL LINE X
o SLIP
- quasi standard
- less than ideal, though
o Host agent for terminal
- Does data compression
ALTERNATE I/O DEVICE
o support for barcode reader, badge reader, etc.
o Differnet output devices
SUCCESS OF AN X TERMINAL
DEPENDS ON
o Solving memory issue
o Satisfying user concerns
o Implementing new standards
Some general comments from the audience included...
Have the Session/window manager run on server ??
X Terminal targeted to ONLY RUN APPLICATIONS ??
|
| 11.2 | | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Who's on first? | Thu Jan 26 1989 17:39 | 96 |
| Joe,
I was also at that session. There were some comments made in response to
some of these points. In general they can be stated as:
Visual's implementation of an X Terminal is at fault not X or the X based
applications.
> o NO LOCAL DISK
Not necessarily.
> o NO VIRTUAL MEMORY
Since fonts are generally obtained through NFS access to host, NFS could
be used for paging. You could then have virtual memory.
> o NO user program execution (just runs the X server on board)
You might add a window and or session manager running locally. Minimally,
you probably need some application to create a session on a remote host.
> MEMORY
>
> o Low end X terminals will FREQUENTLY run out of memory
Virtual's low-end (1 meg, no virtual) certainly will 8^{)
> o Currently, there are NO recovery mechanisms in X to recover
> from not having enough memory.
That's for sure. This was made clear from the beginning of X. Anybody
implementing an X Terminal without taking this into account is in for
a rude awakening.
> o The sample server from MIT (X11) is designed for
>
> - corerectness
> - portability
> - not speed
So, why did Virtual ship the sample server in their X Terminals? Why
didn't they optimize it for their architecture?
> o Should consider reworking the graphics alogorithm for lower
> performance platforms.
That really means that each vendor of X Terminals should optimize their
server.
> SECURITY
>
> o User can bring down the network
>
> o X Terminal vulnerable to malicious users
These are issues with the way that you implement your X Terminal.
>
> STANDARDS NEEDED
>
> o Font access
>
> o Initial connection
Being worked.
> SUCCESS OF AN X TERMINAL
> DEPENDS ON
>
> o Solving memory issue
>
> o Satisfying user concerns
YES DEFINITELY
> o Implementing new standards
Mostly no.
My impression was:
1) People really think that X Terminals are important
2) The statements made in the session sounded like excuses for why
Visual's X Terminals aren't very good.
3) Manufacturers of X Terminals should not expect X application
developers to substantially change the way the write applications.
Instead, they should supply features which take into account
the way applications are written.
Dick
|
| 11.3 | | STAR::KLEINSORGE | shockwave rider | Fri Jan 27 1989 10:41 | 61 |
|
Nah, their bozo's.
The hardware for a "X" terminal should be something like:
o 1-2 meg ROM
- Server Code
- xterm/dxterm
- network transport
o 2-4 meg RAM
- Server data structures
- xterm/dxterm data structures
- network transport data structures
- downloadable server extension memory
o 80268/386 processor or even a �VAX
o 1-2 serial lines
o Thinwire connection
o Extensions could include:
- SCSI interface for disk/tape/ect.
- Other OOTB applications in ROM
- "ROM" cartidges for third party applications
The "X" terminal should *be* a terminal when not connected to a
network. That is, a built in terminal emulator on the order of
xterm or dxterm would be built into ROM along with a standard X
server and a network transport. The xterm could directly talk
to the serial lines, and thus "standalone" you get a mulit-session
terminal. When connected to a network, the box can then also
operate as a regular X-Server to other applications. If you
further put an O/S into this box in either in RAM or downloaded
from the network, it could be a workstation. If the processor were
a 80386 you could also provide a means to add a SCSI disk and run
(say) OS/2 or MS-DOS... all things to all people.
+-------------------------------+
! Network Transport !<----------> Network
+-------------------------------+
^
!
v
+-------------------------------+
! X Server !<----------> Video, Mouse, KB
+-------------------------------+
^
!
v
+-------------------------------+
! xterm !<----------> Serial lines
+-------------------------------+
|
| 11.4 | some info | STAR::BRANDENBERG | Intelligence - just a good party trick? | Fri Jan 27 1989 10:57 | 16 |
|
(I have one of these on my desk. I can't *use* it for anything because
I can't get NFS or named served, but...)
The terminal includes a 'connection window' brought down with the f4
button which has an option for initiating a telnet connection (also
performs setup for its serial line, getting network statistics and
pinging remote hosts). The configuration for the X windows component
includes an option for enabling backing store (not tested). The
terminal's footprint is slightly smaller than a vt220's and the base,
wherein the guts are located, is substantially smaller than a vt240's.
Optical, three-button mouse, improved vt220 keyboard (real escape and
backspace keys) with slightly lighter but less solid key travel.
monty
|
| 11.5 | | KONING::KONING | NI1D @FN42eq | Fri Jan 27 1989 11:43 | 8 |
| Re .3: "all things to all people" usually carries along with it the problem
of "high cost to all people". Sure, you can try to build a PC and tell
people it's just a terminal, but you will be undersold by terminals that
aren't trying to be PCs as well. (Or in other words, why do we build
VT320s when we might just as well just sell PCs?)
paul
|
| 11.6 | | STAR::KLEINSORGE | shockwave rider | Fri Jan 27 1989 13:35 | 26 |
| .5
Modular design, and a little common sense could provide a X-Terminal
that could be offered in several flavors from bounded low-end, to
expandable high-end. By standardizing on a processor archetecture
for both low and high end variants you can also minimize the
investment in software since much if not all would be the same
from low to high.
I could easily see a low-end bounded system like I described above
that offered (say) B&W 800x600 resolution, thinwire connection, built-in
server/xterm and (again, say) a network transport based on something
low-level, simple and small (like LAT) and 2mb of RAM using a 80286 - for
our current "terminal" (at least VT340) prices.
The same basic architecture could also be the basis of a 80386 based
system with 256 color 1280x1024 resolution, lot of RAM, SCSI interface
etc.
All things to everyone. You want VAX? No problem, run the client on
your 8800, you want MS-DOS - sure, get the DOS emulator for DECwindows
or just boot it up from disk on the high end machine. Need a terminal
- no problem.
|
| 11.7 | At one time BATCH processing was considered best | TYFYS::MOLLER | Halloween the 13th on Elm Street #7 | Fri Jan 27 1989 14:45 | 16 |
| I agree that an X terminal should be able to connect to a 300 or 1200
baud modem (just like a VT100/VT200 or VT300) and let people do real
work using standard phone lines, or connect into a LAT at 9600 baud (or
what ever). I dial into other systems ocassionally & I need real low
level generic terminal functions, not always slick high performance
output. It seems to me that a terminal window that (thru software)
connects up to an RS232 port and sends out simple ASCII text, just
like a Character Cell terminal should not be a killer to implement
within a stand-alone X terminal. I also agree about the resolution
options that have been mentioned. Whats wrong with restrictions on
capabilities on lower end gear. They exist on the high end systems
also. I think that there might be an exceptional market for a cheap
and functional (Lower resolution & less glitter) X Terminal.
Jens
|
| 11.8 | Need the PERFORMANCE !! | LDP::GABRIEL | Daylight come an me wanna go home | Fri Jan 27 1989 14:52 | 12 |
|
RE: -.1
The market is DEFINITELY there for a "cheap" X terminal, BUT it
needs to have DECENT performance before it is going to be a "win"
in the market place. As I understand it, the X terminal from Visual
Technology doesn't have the performance.
Just my 2 cents.
|
| 11.9 | Restrictions | IAGO::SCHOELLER | Who's on first? | Fri Jan 27 1989 15:01 | 27 |
| Restrictions on resolution are not a real big problem. Developers should
already be making some effort to support variation of resolution and screen
size (Mac up to say 100dpi x 19").
The real problem is that developers are not being cautious with server
resources (and maybe can't be). Many of the worst situations are created
by the toolkit. For example, if there are slight variations in the GC
desired, each widget could end up with a unique GC in a toolkit based
application (can you say, "all of the DECwindows applications?").
Toolkit applications which do not use gadgets will have VERY large numbers
of windows. With gadgets they will only have large numbers of windows 8^{).
In an under resourced X Terminal even windows can't be viewed as cheap.
Use of Pixmaps and color tables can also get out of hand in some applications.
When the X terminal is only good for running 1 application at a time (and maybe
not all of those) then it is not going to be much of a winner no matter how
cheap it is.
The option of selecting rs232 or some other connection (an addition to ethernet)
is an interesting idea. Having a range of performance capabilities based
on a single architecture is a must. What must be realized is that if you
are going to bother having X in it, it better be able to be useful that way.
Dick
|
| 11.10 | | IO::MCCARTNEY | James T. McCartney III - DTN 381-2244 ZK02-2/N24 | Fri Jan 27 1989 15:59 | 8 |
| A DECwindows terminal Phase 0 is currently open. If you have comments send
them there. The person to contact is VIC BELLEMARE at VIDEO::BELLEMARE.
BTW. Much of what you've been discussing here has already been discussed
by the engineering teem responsible for the project.
James
|
| 11.11 | | BUNYIP::QUODLING | Apologies for what Doug Mulray said... | Sat Jan 28 1989 00:19 | 151 |
| found on usenet...
Newsgroups: comp.newprod
Path: decwrl!purdue!gatech!mcdchg!usenet
Subject: NCD16 X Window Display Station
Posted: 25 Jan 89 17:30:43 GMT
Organization: Network Computing Devices, Palo Alto, CA
Approved: [email protected]
X WINDOW DISPLAY STATION FROM NETWORK COMPUTING DEVICES COMBINES
WORKSTATION-STYLE GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE WITH TERMINAL ERGONOMICS AND
AFFORDABLE PRICING
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., Jan. 23, 1989 -- A new type of network peripheral that
provides workstation-like display capability -- including a windowed interface,
high resolution and advanced communications -- for about $2,500, or half the
entry price of a typical workstation, has been introduced by Network Computing
Devices, Inc.
The NCD16 Network Display Station, the year-old firm's first product, is a
compact desktop unit based on the X Window System, the de facto industry
standard for high-performance windowing applications. It offers a
sophisticated yet affordable user interface to networks of computers supporting
X, including those running the UNIX and VMS operating systems.
Running the industry-standard TCP/IP communication protocols, the NCD16 is a
general-purpose product suited for a wide variety of engineering, scientific
and professional applications, such as software development; computer-aided
design, manufacturing and engineering; information retrieval; transaction
processing; and computer-aided publishing.
Filling the Terminal-Workstation Gap
The NCD16 "defines a new category of product designed specifically for network
computing environments, where an ASCII terminal doesn't do enough and a
workstation is overkill," said Judy Estrin, NCD executive vice president.
"Network users, particularly in the engineering and scientific community,
typically run complex applications on UNIX- or VMS-based hosts and need a
sophisticated display function at their desks to output the results of those
applications," Estrin said. "To get a display with multiple windows and high
resolution, these users have had to buy PCs -- and add high-resolution monitors
-- or diskless workstations at $5,000 and up. But a large part of what they're
paying for is the machine's application processing power, which often goes
unused."
Dedicated to display and communications functions rather than application, the
NCD16 fills this gap between the low-function terminal and the high-priced
workstation, she said. Its workstation-style user interface can access
multiple hosts and maintain multiple active sessions, communicating the data
for each session to the user through a separate display window.
A Graphics Front End for Minicomputers
"An ideal application for the NCD16," Estrin said, "is as a graphics front end
to VAXes or other minicomputers, which have suffered from lack of the windowing
capability usually associated with workstations. The NCD16 lets users protect
and leverage large installed bases of minis without making costly investments
in workstations and PCs."
The NCD16 Network Display Station includes a monochrome monitor, single-board
electronics located in the monitor's base, keyboard, mouse, software and two
communications interfaces.
The unit's unique 16-inch diagonal, square-format monitor offers 1024- by
1024-pixel, 105-dot-per-inch resolution. "You get the same million-pixel
functionality as on the 19-inch monitors typically used with workstations,"
Estrin said. "But with a footprint of only 13 by 13 inches for the monitor and
base, the NCD16 take up only about half the space on the desktop."
Incorporating the latest ergonomic standards in monitor technology, the NCD16
has a fast 70-Hz refresh rate for flicker-free operation, and supports and
"overscan" features which eliminates the distracting black border that
surrounds the image on most displays.
Quiet Fan-Less Operation
Because the NCD16 is a compact product dedicated to display functions, without
the PC or workstation's requirements for internal expansion space, it can use a
convection cooling system, eliminating the need for a fan and ensuring
noiseless operation.
The NCD16 is based on a 12.5-MHz MC68000 microprocessor which runs the X Window
System software and the TCP/IP protocols. A graphics co-processor assists in
display functions. The board also contains 1 to 4.5 megabytes of dynamic
random-access memory (DRAM).
Modular Network Interface for Future Upgrades
The NCD16 comes with one asynchronous RS232 serial interface, and offers the
user a choice of an Ethernet (IEEE 802.3) and thin Ethernet interface, or
alternatively a second RS232/RS422 port. Both interfaces are contained on a
removable module that plugs into the NCD16 processor board and can be exchanged
later as interfaces to other network technologies (e.g., ISDN, FDDI, Token
Ring) are made available. The RS232 port support SLIP communications at speeds
up to 38.4 Kbps.
The NCD16 supports both the TCP/IP Domain and IEN 116 Name Servers, which
permit access to networked devices by name rather than numerical address.
The use of standard input device interfaces -- a PS/2 interface for the NCD16
keyboard and a serial interface for the mouse -- ensures that the user can
easily substitute preferred devices if desired.
X Window Server Software
The X Window System standard, developed by the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology and supported by more than 35 major computer vendors, permits the
division of an application program into two parts: user interaction (or
display server) and computation. Dedicated solely to display functions, the
NCD16 supports the display server portion of the software, which enables it to
provide display services for any networked host that supports X Window System
applications. NCD has optimized the software for performance on the NCD
platform.
Software is downloaded into the NCD16 from any networked host that supports the
TFTP file-transfer protocol, facilitating fast and efficient software updating;
a PROM-loading option also is available. A configuration and setup utility is
included with the unit.
Pricing/Availability
Available 60 days after receipt of order, the NCD16 is priced starting at
$2,550 with monitor, base, keyboard, mouse, software, one RS232 serial port and
one Ethernet interface.
Estrin said the NCD16 is the first member of a family of network display
stations. Later versions will feature different screen sizes, color graphics
and increased performance.
Network Computing Devices was formed in February 1988 by three former
executives from Ridge Computers; the founding team was joined in July by
William Carrico, president, and Judith Estrin, executive vice president,
co-founders of Bridge Communications and later executives of 3Com Corporation.
The company has raised $5 million in startup financing from four venture
capital firms.
Company contact:
Judy Estrin
Network Computing Devices
(415) 694-0650 or
[email protected]
|
| 11.12 | Summary of comments re: X terms from USENET | UFP::AVOLIO | I was ULTRIX when ULTRIX wasn't *cool* | Wed Mar 08 1989 10:05 | 460 |
| FYI, From the USENET, a summary of comments and features regarding
X display terminals
Fred (gildor::avolio)
---
From decuac!grebyn!haven!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-va
Article 8979 of comp.windows.x:
Path: decuac!grebyn!haven!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!ssc-v
>From: [email protected] (Mark J. McIntosh)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Info Wanted: X display terminals (summary) (long)
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 7 Mar 89 06:49:03 GMT
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. Canada
Lines: 439
I sent a request for X display terminal info on February 19, 1989.
> I would like to hear about people's experiences with X display terminals.
>buying a full-blown workstation.
>
> So, all comments are welcome. Some people here are considering
>buying one in the near future. I've only heard about the VISUAL ones.
>There must be more choice than that. What one would you (not) recommend?
There have been other discussions ongoing within this newsgroup
about X display terminals. I will try not to duplicate what has
appeared since my request.
The following is a summary of the responses. My thanks to all who
responded.
Thanks again,
Mark.
......................................................................
>From: uw-beaver!harvard!jmullins!faulkner (Don Faulkner)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 17:09:00 EST
I have been using the Graphon GO-235 terminal with X-Windows for about
16 months or so now - first under X10R4, and, for the past two months,
under X11R3. The host for X10R4 was a uVAX II. The current host
(for X11R3) is a Sun 4/260. The terminal connects via RS-232 - if you
have hardware handshake (Sun does...) you can push it to 32k baud.
Really works well, and is probably one of the lowest cost options for
a workable display (it has 1024 x 792 resolution...) Doesn't eat
much cpu or memory (the server actually runs on the host machine...)
16 months ago, I paid about $1400 for the display and server.
To contact graphon: 1-800-GRAPHON.
......................................................................
>From: gatech!mailrus!sharkey!edsews.eds.com!ferguson
Date: 20 Feb 89 14:47 -0800
[[ This kind person sent me a bunch of news articles regarding using X
on PC's and some of the articles from the other current
X terminal discussions in comp.windows.x. If anyone is interested, I
can send it to them. If you read this newsgroup, you have likely seen
most of them already. Mark ]]
......................................................................
>From: <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 89 15:34:17 PST
We recently had a demo of the NCD (I forget which model) terminal. It seemed
pretty nice, but was significantly slower that my sun 3/50 (which runs R3
server with purdue+ speedups). I am not sure, however, if that can be
attributed to the fact that what I used to guage this (ico) was running an
much slower processor when I saw it on the NCD (when viewing the NCD demo,
we ran ioc off a client 3/60, when using my 3/50, ico was a client on a
sequent s81).
It was fairly easy to set up and they claimed to support xdm, the new X
session manager. One sticky point however, they did not support the
xhost command...thus the thing was open for use by just about any client
on the network. They say this will be added in a later release of their
software.
>From what I have heard, the technology in the NCD unit is nearly the same as
in the VISUAL model...a 68000 with a lance ethernet chip. Both companies
are suposed to be announcing higher end models at Uniforum this week. I
could give you the name of a contact at NCD and perhaps VISUAL as well if
you like.
A third company (ACER/CounterPoint) has a model out as well, but I am not
sure about it at all. I hear it is based on Intel 80x86 processors.
- Scott Holt
Ga. Tech
......................................................................
>From: [email protected] (Adam Feigin)
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 89 09:36:14 -0500
Indeed they are [[ more economical ]]. We currently have a Visual 640
X Display Station (XDS), which we like very much (we do have a few
nits, which I'll go into later) Not only is it economical in terms of
cost (compared to a workstation), but it requires almost 0 (zilch,
zippo) sys_admin support either. You can always turn it off and reset
it if it crashes, and no harm is done. (You might have to signal the
display manager to restart it, though)
> So, all comments are welcome. Some people here are considering
>buying one in the near future. I've only heard about the VISUAL ones.
>There must be more choice than that. What one would you (not) recommend?
Like I said, we have a Visual 640 XDS, and like it, except for 2 nits.
The screen is only 14inches, which is small if you're used to working on
a 16 or 19 inch workstation screen. The other nit is that the refresh
rate is a bit too low, and the flicker is noticeable, especially if you
have lines close together (like twm for titlebars). I have seen and
played with the Network Computing Devices NCD-16, and we have one on
order. In my opinion, it is much nicer than the Visual, albeit a tad
more expensive. It's got a 16inch screen, higher resolution(1024x1024
vs. 1024x800 for the Visual),70Hz refresh rate, and graphics
accelerator hardware in addition to a 68K. It also seems easier to
expand memory (When I spoke to the folks at NCD, they told me NOT to buy
memory upgrades from them, to just go out and buy 1 MB SIMMS and plug
them it !!) than the visual. There is also a X-Terminal made by Acer
Counterpoint, but it has shitty resolution (640x480 !!). I would stay
away from it. I know for a fact that Visual will have a 19inch model
available (it's supposed to be demoed at UniForum in a week), and that
both Visual and NCD are planning color models for mid-summer.
Thats it. If you want any more info, just drop me a note.
Internet: [email protected] Adam Feigin
Bitnet: feigin@crnlthry Workstation Consultant
UUCP: {backbones}!cornell!batcomputer!feigin Cornell National Supercomputer
MaBell: (607) 255-3985 Facility, Visualization Group
"Sometimes a little brain damage can help"
......................................................................
>From: uunet!lupine!mikeh
Date: 22 Feb 89 18:45 -0800
[[ Yes! This is a commercial break. Unpaid, though. I have no
connection with NCD, not even as a customer ]]
My company, Network Computing Devices, has just introduced the NCD16
network display station (aka "X Terminal"). The NCD16 has a 16" *square*
screen with 1024 x 1024 resolution. A 16" square screen has the same vertical
dimension as a 19" screen but about 1.5 inches narrower. This allows us
to give you a desktop footprint about the same as a 14" ASCII terminal.
The NCD16 also support the notion of downloading its software over the
network from a host computer versus having all the code in ROM, hence the
name "network display station". (We also have a PROM version if that
is required). I've already sent you some information on the NCD16 via
mail [[ Thanks!]]. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Mike Harrigan
VP Marketing
Network Computing Devices
......................................................................
>From: Ken Lee <uunet!daisy!klee>
Date: 22 Feb 89 19:15 -0800
Organization: Daisy Systems Corp., Mountain View, Ca.
Here's a collection of stuff from the net.
[[ I edited this for brevity. There was a long product announcement
from NCD which I chose not to repeat. Write to NCD if you want
more info (see above message from their VP). There were also some
of the articles from the "Thoughts about X terminals" series - not
repeated here. ]]
...........
>From klee
>From: [email protected] (Ken Lee)
Subject: X terminals
Date: 25 Jan 89 20:20:19 GMT
There's an article in the current issue of *Digital Review* about X terminals.
They list these:
Visual Technology (Lowell, MA), model 640X, 68000 cpu, 12MHz, 1024x800
monochrome, 14" screen, $1995
Networking Computing Devices (Mountain View, CA), model NCD 16, 68000 cpu,
12.5MHz, ASIC graphics processor, 1024x1024 monochrome, 16" square
screen
Tektronix (Beaverton, OR), model 4211 Graphics Netstation, 386SX cpu,
TI 34010 graphics processor, 1024x768 color, 15" screen, $6495
Acer-Counterpoint (San Jose, CA), model Xebra 1000, 8086 cpu, 640x480
monochrome, $1000
DEC, no info
As far as I know, only the Visual terminal is currently for sale. I've
seen prototypes of the Acer and NCD terminals and they seem pretty stable.
I think they're supposed to start shipping this quarter. The DEC terminal
may still be in the vaporware stage.
Ken Lee
--
[email protected]
Daisy Systems Corp., Interactive Graphics Tools Dept.
..........
>From pyramid!ames!garp!mit-eddie!polygen!peter Thu Jan 26 09:20:36 1989
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 10:41:49 EST
>From: ames!EDDIE.MIT.EDU!polygen!peter (Peter Ent)
To: mit-eddie!garp!ames!pyramid!daisy!klee
Subject: X Terminals
Thanks for the terminal listing. I have seen another X terminal from
Graph-on and it is VERY impressive. I don't know how it compares
with the other terminals, but I give you some info:
It runs a 68000 cpu with a 1024x768 (approx.) resolution. The price
hasn't been set, but it's supposed to be between $1K and $2K. The
server resides on the connected machine (via 19.2 serial line!!!).
The server can run concurrenly with your workstation's normal server.
The Graph-on server sends compressed, propritary code to the terminal.
The only slow thing at the moment is bitmap transfers, and they aren't
so bad. For example, in the "bitmap" program, the time a sun server
takes to draw the dotted grid lines is very slow compared to the
Graph-on terminal, which has been optimized to draw the dotted lines.
It literally brought up the grid in one shot (32x32 icon). It also
holds fonts locally until freed and other things.
I haven't seen the actual reviews of the other terminals, but the Graph-on
terminal, since the server resides on the host, isn't restricted to
(rather, restricted by) an application using bitmaps, pixmaps, fonts,
lots of windows, etc. It was really very fast.
--peter ent
Poygen Corp.
Waltham, Mass.
(617) 890-2888
...........
Date: Thu, 26 Jan 89 13:17:10 EST
>From: ames!EDDIE.MIT.EDU!polygen!peter (Peter Ent)
To: mit-eddie!garp!ames!pyramid!daisy!klee
Subject: Re: X Terminal
Here's the info:
GraphOn Corp.
1980 Concourse Dr.
San Jose, Ca. 95131
(408) 435-8400
Their representative out here is: Malay Thaker. I don't have his
local number. I checked and they are on uunet as "graphon."
--pete ent
..........
>From: sgi!lassen!ian (Ian Clements)
Date: 30 Jan 1989 0840-PST (Monday)
To: daisy!klee
In article <[email protected]> you write:
>There's an article in the current issue of *Digital Review* about X terminals.
>They list these:
...
> DEC, no info
>
>I don't know if any of these are currently for sale. I've seen prototypes
>of the Acer and NCD terminals and they seem pretty stable. I think they're
>supposed to start shipping this quarter. The DEC terminal may still be
>in the vaporware stage.
The discless VAXstation-2000 is sold as an X terminal. I don't know the US
price for this but we pay 2000 pounds (3300 list price).
This comes with a 15" monochrome display, uVAX-II with FPU, 4Mb RAM, ethernet
controller, and a disc-controller which is only of use if you intend to buy
either a winchester or TK50 cartridge drive (either of which cost more than
the workstation).
Mark Lomas ([email protected])
University of Cambridge
Computer Laboratory
England
.........
>From wyse!vsi1!ames!elroy!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!blanche.ics.uci.edu!raj
>From: [email protected] (Richard A. Johnson)
Subject: NCD-16 X Windowing Terminal (A Review)
Summary: Really nice. A few software bugs.
Date: 15 Feb 89 02:09:20 GMT
Reply-To: Richard A. Johnson <[email protected]>
We recently picked up one of the NCD-16 X Windowing terminals (the one which
was at the Usenix in San Diego in case you know the one to which I'm
referring) for a 1 week evaluation. (We would have liked to keep it longer
but these things are really in demand and NCD doesn't have too many of them
as yet. (We got serial number 50 or so! Something like that.) I thought
I'd give everyone our impressions of it.
General description:
--------------------
16 inch black and white square non-interlaced monitor.
Resolution of 1024 x 1024.
IBM-PC style keyboard layout.
.5 - 4.5 Mb of memory (using SIMs)
There are 4 SIM slots in the base. The unit has .5 Mb with nothing
installed in these slots. You can put in 256K SIMs or 1Mb SIMs.
(Are other size SIMs available? I don't use Macs so I don't know too
much about SIMs really.)
(Our unit had 1.5 Mb using 256K SIMs. We wish we had some 1Mb SIMs
to try it with, but I couldn't find any at the time.)
Software is at rev. 3 of X11. (Visual is currently in Beta testing of Rev. 3.)
Supports thick and thin ethernet plus SLIP.
Good points:
------------
The 16 inch screen is a LOT better than the small 14 inch Visual one. Also
the non-interlaced monitor doesn't flicker like the Visual screen does.
(This "flicker" is really evident if you use "twm". The header bars when
you're focused on a window are really bothersome on the Visual, but are nice
and clean on the NCD-16.)
The pixels are closer together on the NCD and thus pictures appear sharper.
The keyboard feels rather nice. I liked it a lot better than the Visual
keyboard. (And MOST keyboards are better than a Sun, so that was no
competition! :-) )
Setup and use was very straight forward. If you know enough about networking
to set something like this up, then you can figure out how to do it easily.
(By the way, we didn't have a manual, but we set it up with no problems.)
The NCD system has a special graphic processor. This was really evident to
me when I ran "texx" and panned around the zoomed image. On a Sun this
flickers so badly that it's a really pain in the !@#$%, but on the NCD it was
really smooth and fast. A few orders of magnitude improvement! Honest!
The hardware has a little network activity light. It was nice when wondering
why something (like getting a font) was taking so long.
Bad points:
-----------
It doesn't have NFS access for font files. It uses TFTP. This seems slower
than the Visual using NFS. They said they will shortly have NFS (another month
or so).
Apparently you can't have more than around 20 or so TCP connections at once.
This was a problem for us (the support staff), but probably wouldn't be one
for general users. They said they could increase the limit and asked what was a
good number. I told them 50 or so at least, but closer to 100 would be even
better.
It doesn't support compressed fonts. I haven't told them about this yet. I'll
report back on their response when I do.
We found 1 minor bug and 1 major one:
1) Minor: "xset fp" seems to do one of two things; both wrong. Sometimes it
will set the font path to "(none)". This results in all font
manipulations failing making the terminal unusable. Sometimes it
simply "bombs" the system in such a way that it tells you push a letter
to affect a system reboot. Both of these are bad, but you can avoid
them by simply explicitly resetting the same font path.
I haven't told them about this one either. I'll let you know.
2) Major: Sometimes the whole system just "locks up". When this happens the
little network monitoring light stays on constantly and no mouse
buttons or keyboard input works. The system still tracks the mouse but
that's all. Killing X programs doing output on the system doesn't
have any effect.
They said they haven't seen this but they'll take note of it and see
what can be done.
Summary:
--------
If I could get one in my office right now, I'd gladly give up my Sun 3/50!
The increase in speed of the unit more than makes up for the lack of real
estate in my opinion. Others in our support group feel the same way.
We'll probably order a few of them, however we'll have an agreement with them
first that we continue getting free software updates until they support NFS,
have fixed all of the bugs we found, and maybe until they support compressed
fonts.
They're worth checking into. Definitely. By the way, I was told they plan
a larger (19 inch) unit later this year (but who doesn't? 8^) ).
Phone contacts:
Main number for NCD: (415) 694-0650
I talked to Judy Estrin, who refered me to Janak Pathak, the
sales manager.
I hope this long message has been of some help to someone...
Richard A. Johnson [email protected] (Internet)
UCI ICS Assistant Support Manager ucbvax!ucivax!raj (UUCP)
Postmaster / Network Services [email protected] (via Nameservers)
......................................................................
>From: [email protected]
Date: 24 Feb 89 0:46 -0800
Organization: Boing, Milpitas, Ca.
In article <[email protected]> you write:
>
> I would like to hear about people's experiences with X display terminals.
>They look like an economical way to make X available to someone without
>buying a full-blown workstation.
>
Although I'm not selling an X terminal, we are preparing an equivalent
that runs on the Amiga computer. The advantage that the Amiga version of
X11 has over X terminals is running clients locally and local mass
storage. An 880k floppy can store the server and enough fonts for most
people's requirements. Anymore and they can be gotten via NFS off a
central server. Most of the X11R2 demos and clients now run on the amiga
such as uwm, bitmap, and xcalc. There should be no problem porting most
window managers to run locally on the amiga thus releaving some of the
network bandwidth problem.
Several of my beta testers are on the net, if you are interested in their
comments about amiga X, maybe you could post a request for info on how
well it runs to those that have it and summarize results along with the
X terminal results.
Dale
--
Dale Luck GfxBase/Boing, Inc.
{uunet!cbmvax|pyramid}!amiga!boing!dale
......................................................................
--
Mark J. McIntosh <[email protected]>
=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=_=
University of Victoria, ECE Dept. | "...the mystery of life isn't a problem to
Box 1700, Victoria, BC, Canada | solve but a reality to experience."
V8W 2Y2 (604) 721-7211 | from Dune
UUCP: ...!{uw-beaver,ubc-vision}!uvicctr!sirius!mmcintos
|
| 11.13 | ncr x terminal | BUNYIP::QUODLING | Apologies for what Doug Mulray said... | Tue May 02 1989 07:39 | 59 |
| looks like another one...
Article 10515 of comp.windows.x
Path: mountn.dec.com!decuac!schlep.dec.com!jfcl.dec.com!decvax!decwrl!purdue!gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!nc
From: [email protected] (J. McElroy)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: New X-Terminal Vendor announcement (NCR)
Summary: some corrections and additional information
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: 27 Apr 89 19:10:59 GMT
References: <[email protected]>
Organization: NCR Systems Engineering - Orlando
Lines: 40
Some adjustments to the information posted about the
NCR TOWERVIEW X Station....
>The NCR Towerview is a 68020 based X Windows terminal. It has a
>15" monochrome display that is 1,024 by 800 pixels. Memory is 512k of
>RAM that can be extended to 2.5 Mbytes. It has a PS2 compatible
>keyboard.
The keyboard is plug compatible with an IBM-AT, but has 101 key
PS2-like layout.
System has hardware cursor --no disappearing, flashing, jumping cursor fun :-)
>The mouse is a 3-button (unknown if optical, but presumed so).
The mouse has 3 buttons and is opto-mechanical (no pad required ).
>Standard hookup is via RS232. Either Ethernet or the NCR Towernet
TCP/IP and TOWERNET networking are available.
>
>Base price for the machine is $3000. But to make it useable (ethernet
>and some more RAM) I would plan on $4000, minimum.
>NCR (513) 445-5000 (Dayton, Oh)
>
Base price is $2595 and includes 1MB memory and RS-232 interface.
With ethernet option and 1.5MB memory the price is $3300.
Memory is upgradable to 3 MB.
TOWERVIEW supports locally executing X client programs, downloadable X
extensions, multiple telnet sessions in terminal emulation windows, and
a window to the RS-232 port (called Modem Window) when using
ethernet for host communications.
Jeff McElroy - NCR E&M Orlando 407-333-9250
[email protected]
...uunet!ncrorltv!jeff
|
| 11.14 | Continuous Tone X-Terminal | ASSAM::BREEN | | Mon May 08 1989 14:55 | 40 |
| I've been working with several OEMs who requested a continuous-tone, medium-
res (1280x1024) X-terminal. I've been working with a 3rd party which has
one. Obviously, we sell what we build if we can. But, where we havn't
the performance, or the product...
This X-terminal (prototypes of the 8-plane 68030-based system now,
24-planes, july) has impressive curve, vector, and gouraud-shaded polygon
performance; all are directly supported in hardware. Blts at better than
20 million pixels/sec, 2D random oriented, anti-aliased, depth-cued vectors
at better than 50 k/sec. All X rendering functions in hardware. 12-bit
pixmap support, 4 serial ports, scsi, and ethernet ports (thin and thick),
keyboard, mouse, 19" color monitor and spare 6u-VME port are standard. Full
screen pixmap writes at better than 7/sec (because frame buffers are fully
memory mapped). While raster scan rates presently support 60 Hz non-
interlaced display, 72 Hz requires only a new clock, and a 72 Hz monitor.
The host is presently a Motorola 68030 with 8 Megabytes, running a
real-time executive developed by Wind Rivers (Vxworks). The list/each
price is intended to be $11k for the 8-plane version. OEM prices will be
appropriatly lower. Discussions now about replacing 68030 with "some sort of
C-VAX platform", significantly reducing the package cost (the Motorola board
costs the X-terminal vendor around $5k). Using VAX ELN with the X/DECwindows
server, providing us with, at least, some hardware and software support
revenue, DECnet, and leveraging file/network server sales, the port could
be accomplished in 12 to 16 weeks. The alternative cost reduction strategy,
already being pursued by the developer, is a custom 68020 board, with more
memory, and tighter integration between the host and graphics subsystem which
will largely compensate for the lower processor speed. The cost reduction
using the C-VAX should halve system cost, somewhat less reduction for the
68020.
This is the only vendor with this class X-terminal this near
to volume production, however, there are several large workstation vendors
with products in advanced development, at least two of which are aiming for
performance in the range of this product. The market is clearly for the
(file) servers. More capable X-terminals will generate greater demand
for server resources. Workstation vendors may treat high-performance
X-terminals as loss-leaders to get the server business.
Mike Breen
(415) 653-9342
assam::breen
|
| 11.15 | Why are you selling an NON-Digital solution? | IO::MCCARTNEY | James T. McCartney III - DTN 381-2244 ZK02-2/N24 | Thu May 18 1989 02:47 | 20 |
| Can I ask an obvious question? Why are you not attempting to sell a
DECstation 3520 or 3540 (Firefox) - It currently does 24 plane color -
is available NOW and would do what you want. Also it's a
multiprocessor VAX with support from our decomposing compilers. There
is also considerable graphics hardware support from the Wytek
subsystem. The demos which were used at DECUS included realtime
shading and update of the screen using the hardware double-buffering
capability, etc.
The prices are higher than $11K - but then again that's the price you
quoted for an 8 plane system which is the PVAX (VS3100) - That's
competative in both price and performance. The VS3520 clearly
outperforms your needs, and in my opinion is a better fit for your
customer. It also reduces the complexity of his support issues.
In short, learn you own product line and sell what we make!
James
|
| 11.16 | It's a VAX | DECWIN::FISHER | Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO3-4/W23 | Fri May 19 1989 17:49 | 5 |
| P.S. Note that .15 should say "VAXstation 3520, 3540", not DECstation.
Firefox is a VAX, not a MIPS or a Radio Shack.
Burns
|
| 11.17 | s/DEC/VAX/ | IO::MCCARTNEY | James T. McCartney III - DTN 381-2244 ZK02-2/N24 | Mon May 22 1989 17:25 | 2 |
| Opps...
|
| 11.18 | Some questions about DWT now? | MYALLA::ANDERSON | My DEBIT/CREDIT performance is lousy | Wed Jul 26 1989 04:58 | 12 |
| I understand we have program announced the DECwindows Terminal.
Can anyone tell me who already makes X-windows terminals, and how they
go for price and performance?
Are our goals for the DWT to bring out a low-cost, high performance
terminal that sells in bulk volume? Will it include flat screen
technology (light, easy to carry unlike some 19" monitors we know),
single power cord, etc...
Will it be a loadable network device, in the style of terminal servers,
so that it loads its s/w off a ethernet host?
|
| 11.19 | GRAPH-ON | PRNSYS::LOMICKAJ | Jeff Lomicka | Wed Jul 26 1989 12:08 | 3 |
| GRAPH-ON has had a $1500 X terminal for two years now.
|
| 11.20 | Still best to ask privately for this kind of detail | DECWIN::FISHER | Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO3-4/W23 | Thu Jul 27 1989 13:09 | 6 |
| Those kinds of questions for a specific product are still best asked in
private mail to the product manager. As you said, the announcement was
for the program, not for a specific product.
Burns
|
| 11.21 | | PRAVDA::JACKSON | Elect Bill Jackson, Newton Ward 1 Alderman | Thu Jul 27 1989 14:52 | 21 |
| Current X Terminal products:
Graph-on, Acer Small screen format (like PC style), about $1500
NCD, HDS, Visual larger screen format (1Kx1K or so), About $2500
Each has its benefits and detractions. Some load from ROM, others load
from the network. (there are pros and cons of each of those also, can
you imagine 200 terminals requesting network boot all at the same time!)
I suggest you talk to the product manager (Vic Bellemare) or the
marketing manager (Don Murphy). They will surely have competitive
information as well as how we stand up.
-bill
|
| 11.22 | Thanks | SNOC02::ANDERSONK | The Unbearable Lightness of Being | Sat Jul 29 1989 01:05 | 8 |
| 200 terminals requesting a reload off network sounds horrible, but
I guess there are probably customers that have over 100 terminal
servers ...
I wonder if a DEC/X-windows terminal perhaps should have a non-volatile
memory and be able to, at powerup, check version in memory against network
accessible version?
|
| 11.23 | Take a look at ZK sometime... | IO::MCCARTNEY | James T. McCartney III - DTN 381-2244 ZK02-2/N24 | Thu Aug 03 1989 15:28 | 10 |
| As for 200 terminals loading off the network, you can say the same about
workstations loading from boot nodes in a LAVC. This is exactly the situation
that we have in ZK immediately after a power failure (restoration). Every node
in the various LAVCs start screaming "feed me, feed me". It gets slow until
the bridges kick in but works rather well. The real problem is overloading of
the boot node. The network has enough bandwidth, it's usually the boot node
that runs out of gas.
James
|
| 11.24 | Report from Sigraph - TEK has 1024x1204 X terminal - acceptable performance. | IO::MCCARTNEY | James T. McCartney III - DTN 381-2244 ZK02-2/N24 | Thu Aug 03 1989 15:36 | 11 |
|
At Siggraph, Tektronix was demonstrating a 1024x1024 X terminal, with 4MB
running X11R3. The performance was about the same as the VS-II with
DECwindows V1.0. Price was $2K.
I didn't get to try torturing the terminal. And it was only running limited
number of concurrent applications. Thus I have no idea as to how it would
behave when the number of windows get large.
James
|
| 11.25 | | KOBAL::VANNOY | Jake VanNoy | Thu Aug 03 1989 23:42 | 5 |
| I think the black and white TEK X-terminal is the NCD device.
The color X-terminal from TEK is their own. Price starts at around
$7.5k for a 4 plane system.
|
| 11.26 | Belated Response to Firefox, VS3100, PMAX | ASSAM::BREEN | | Sun Mar 18 1990 04:48 | 16 |
| A belated response to an obvious question: Firefox didn't have either
a competetive price, or the performance of the X-Terminal mentioned.
In this case, direct frame buffer access was essential to the
application's performance, and none of our accelerators is competive.
The transform processor is base upon a "Weitek" floating point engine,
not "Wytek", which does nothing for X performance.
Neither the PVAX or VS3100 with color option and paging disk were
price competitive, and the customer had a need for a Q-bus VMS system
in his system, eliminating a DS3100. To develop systems with OEMs, we
need to help them to be competitive. There are bound to be areas where
we are not competitve. This is one, but one where we are working on
solutions.
Mike Breen
|
| 11.27 | Third Party X-Terminals Conference! | ASSAM::BREEN | | Sun Mar 18 1990 04:53 | 5 |
| A conference for third party X-Terminals, and unusual applications
for X-Terminals has been opened: CHEESE::X-terminals The conference
is not presently public. But membership for the asking can be
had by mailing cheese::kaiser, cheese::mackenzie, sayer::elmore, or
assam::breen.
|
| 11.28 | No conference is "public" | SICVAX::SWEENEY | Patrick Sweeney in Hong Kong | Sun Mar 18 1990 13:08 | 9 |
|
RE: .-1 "The conference is not presently public"
Private computer on a private network of a private company.
Please refrain from calling proprietary information or private property
of Digital Equipment Corporation "public". When you mean "limited to
the use of Digital employees" use those words. Use "public" specifically
to refer to things in which Digital has no ownership interest.
|