Experience with Orchid Prodesigner, Multisync XL, ISC 2.0.2?

Tom Yager tyager at maxx.UUCP
Mon May 7 02:51:11 AEST 1990


In article <269 at uucs1.UUCP>, gaf at uucs1.UUCP (gaf) writes:
> In article <1990Apr23.145255.19996 at ico.isc.com> scottw at 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------------+



More information about the Comp.unix.i386 mailing list