From: ward@bruno.EBay.Sun.COM () Subject: Re: X terminals: Suggestion for projects like SLS, MCC, etc. Date: 14 Jun 1993 21:53:48 GMT
In article 7726@taylor.uucp, mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
> rhodesia@wixer.bga.com (Felix S. Gallo) writes:
>
> >mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
> >>
> >>No, that is not the only question. You left off ease of use, ease of
> >>administration, reliability, etc... Besides, you are quoting rock-bottom
> >>clone stuff with questionable warranty, etc. Look at the monitor and card
> >>you quoted: low resolution, flicker, poor performance. Those are the kind
> >>of things I looked at before accepting Xterminals as real choices.
> >>
> >>The performance of the above setup (under X) will be twice as slow as the
> >>cheapest X terminal I could find ($875) (+$400 one-time for server).
>
> >Hey, everyone, Mark Davis, while a systems administrator, doesn't actually
> >understand X, Xterminals, or PCs.
>
> >1) "$400 one-time for server". There does not exist a machine capable of
> >running multiple X terminals over a net for $400.
>
> Hey, everyone, Felix Gallo, while an irritant, apparently doesn't understand
> any of the concepts he blabs about because he has to continuously resport to
> personal attacks.
>
> The X server runs on the TERMINAL. You LOAD THIS ONE PROGRAM on the HOST.
> The terminals TFTP it. You pay for it ONCE and will support as MANY XTERMINALS
> as you connect to THAT HOST.
Actually are inaccurate on several accounts Mark. First of all the terminal which
you mention the XP11 from Tektronics retails for $995 not $875. Second of all it
is not even Grey scale it is Monochrome 1024x768. I can accept the argument that
not everyone has to have color, but grey scale is *very* useful if you can't afford
the real thing. Second of all, according to the Tektronics rep I spoke to this
morning, the Xterminal server runs on the host not on the Xterminal.
Imagine if your hospital had grey scale you could keep Xrays online in a form which
is very readable, all sorts of things like that... Or color photos/images could be
sent via electronic mail to other doctors for second opinions, cat scan information,
the potential uses for color/grey scale are limitless...
>
> >2) "low resolution, flicker, poor performance." Over 130k X stones in
> >color at 15" is not particularly bad. Moreover, non-interlaced monitors
> >do not flicker noticeably at the sort of resolution given by an $875 X
> >terminal.
>
> Right, show me. We are talking about price vs. performance vs. easy of use/
> setup vs. etc... A Cray would have excellent performance, but it would not
> sell in the price range.
Yeah but if you can get a cray for the same price as an X terminal don't you think it
would be unwise to choose the Xterminal?
You can outfit a diskless 486 with 8MB of memory, locally running X-servers and clients
a protected mode OS (Your Xterminal ever lock up on you?) with memory protection for
the same price as your *cheap* X terminal retails for.
You would get the following benefits to this approach:
1) have superior X graphics ~100,000 Xstones.
2) it can be upgraded to a color system for the cost of the monitor.
3) has virtual memory for *large* graphics app.
4) you get integer workstation performance *locally* even if the central host is
bogged down.
5) you can add a local disk if you chose to loosen dependence on a central host.
6) components are off the shelf and replaceable (and if you are concerned with
quality the motherboard and graphics cards I priced are manufactured by IBM.
7) You can use it run MSDOS (barf) locally if you really need those legacy apps.
Oh but your right that an Xterminal that I can't upgrade which is monochrome is
*definitely* superior to this comparably priced diskless pc/workstation... NOT!
Don't limit your users just because you are too lazy to setup a *real* network of
computers. That's an disservice to yourself and them...
>
> >3) "ease of use." X is as easy to use on a PC as it is on an X terminal.
> >That's why it's X.
>
> We are talking about MAINTENANCE, SETUP, CONFIGURATION. You shold know
> the difference between remote machine and remote terminal maintenance
> costs.
That really depends on your skills doesn't it? Generally good system administrators
are well equipped to deal with networks and pcs by now, I hardly think this is an
issue...
>
> >4) "ease of administration." Diskful machines are vastly easier to
> >administrate, as any first year sysadmin can vouch.
>
> You are really wrong. I have admin'ed both, and you are way out
> of the water making that statement. No terminal comes anywhere near close
> to the maintenance of a computer, period.
Less power, less functionality, less flexibility, fewer options, I guess that would
make your job easier now wouldn't it? I guess it would also limit and restrict the
potential of your users too wouldn't it?
The market is changing quickly, I can add a sound board to the PC and get voice mail
for $150 per machine, just try getting this sort of functionality on an Xterminal
without *really* opening your bank book. How about video, I can add a video card and
get video if I want, the options are much greater with this configuration, yours is
*very* short sighted on the other hand, I need an Xterminal because this is how I
work today, without the possibility that this may change...
>
> >5) "reliability." Once well-versed in the PC architecture, repairs can
> >cost from $20 to $200 instead of $500-875.
>
> Right, much more repairs at a lower cost. I would much rather have higher
> Reliability.
Higher reliability? I don't think you have proven this, as a matter of fact I have
personally witnessed the Xterminal servers running on the host actually panic machines
repeatedly... We all have our horror stories so you aren't going to get very far with
me on this one...
>
> >7) what sort of network does Mr. Davis suggest I run 60 X terminals on?
>
> Multiple Ethernet channels (I would estimate about 4).
> And I am *NOT* suggesting, nor HAVE I, that you should use X terminals
> at all. There is a LOT more to consider; especially regarding the amount
> of use, level of the users, etc. It is ONE solution that works VERY well
> in many (not all) situations.
This is all part of the cost, I know you don't like to add it in, but your really
should! Xterminals are a major drag on the network, they hit it for every keystroke,
mouse move, etc...
>
> >8) what happens when the server crashes?
>
> Again, why would the server crash? It is running on the Xterminal. If it
> "crashes" (which I have not seen), the Xterminal would request the server
> code from the host again and start running it.
Because that's what computers do! A friend of mine who works for AT&T made them all
stop using Xterminals because it kept crashing their pyramid! It was costing their
developers a fortune! Xservers have access at a hardware level on the host, and if
they aren't written correctly or hit a glitch they will kernel panic the machine.
Xclients running on a host however generally run in user mode and are *very* unlikely
to potentially crash the machine.
>
> >>Besides, nothing like taking a terminal out of a box, plug it in, configure
> >>in 70 seconds, and start using it...
>
> >10) if you really give a damn whether it takes 70 seconds or 1 hour to
> >start using a machine that will be in service for 3 years or more, then
> >there's really no point talking further.
>
> You can say THAT AGAIN. I am ******ONE PERSON******** doing ****ALL****
> the computer work in this facility. My time is apparently a ***LOT***
> more important than yours.
Good for your, but from the looks of how much have posted to all of these news groups
you don't get very much work done. I guess it is easy to administer a network if you
never work...
>
> >God save Lake Taylor Hospital. :)
>
> I am getting really tired of you personal attacks because you cannot discuss
> matters rationally.
>
> And God does not need to save Lake Taylor Hospital as far as information
> systems- I did. We are now light years ahead of other similar facilities,
> and spending much less. Now go annoy someone else.
>
In your opinion...