From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: X terminals: Suggestion for projects like SLS, MCC, etc. Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1993 13:52:11 GMT
ward@bruno.EBay.Sun.COM () writes:
>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.
They were talking about street prices, and so was I.
> Second of all it
>is not even Grey scale it is Monochrome 1024x768.
Never said is was Gray Scale. They have several different models. The XP-11
is mono.
>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.
Agreed. But mono is not that bad at all. Mwm uses dithering to achieve
almost the same effect, hence 3-d buttons, etc...
>Second of all, according to the Tektronics rep I spoke to this
>morning, the Xterminal server runs on the host not on the Xterminal.
This is just plain ****WRONG***** The server RESIDES on the host. It is
transfered via TFTP to the Xterminal when the terminal is first turned on run.
I can assure you that the server is running on the Xterminal. There is
absolutely no question about that. Make sure the rep you were talking to
is a tech, not a non-technical sales rep.
>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...
Yes, the potential is higher. But we have no plans to use those type of
imaging services currently. However, if we do, I can simply add color or
grey scale X-terminals to the system without buying additional server tapes
or anything (all the XP-10 series terminals are compatibile).
>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.
Not true. And no, the Xterminal never "locks up".
>You would get the following benefits to this approach:
> 1) have superior X graphics ~100,000 Xstones.
If it is set up correctly, yes.
> 2) it can be upgraded to a color system for the cost of the monitor.
yes
> 3) has virtual memory for *large* graphics app.
I can put up to 12MB in the XP-10 series terminals. And memory on the host
is plentiful.
> 4) you get integer workstation performance *locally* even if the central host is
> bogged down.
True. But now you are discussing centralized vs. distributed. This is
an environmental consideration. Both have advantages and disadvantages.
> 5) you can add a local disk if you chose to loosen dependence on a central host.
Read above. We have no desire for a high-maintenance distributed system.
> 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.
Right. The higher quality clones work better. And cost more.
> 7) You can use it run MSDOS (barf) locally if you really need those legacy apps.
We can runs MSDOS remotely on the main computer when needed (double barf)
>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!
Wake up- you are looking at only what you want to see.
>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...
This kind of crappy comment is typical of the last few posters. You have
*****NO IDEA****** what my users need. You have ********NO IDEA*******
what the issues are at this facility.
[lots of other meaningless comments deleted to save space]
>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...
The server runs on the Xterminal. And I have seen distributed systems
fall apart constantly. So what.
>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.
I would say that is a testimony to the pyramid. Have had 0 problems. And it
is OBVIOUS that an Xterminal running the server on the host is STUPID. You
essentially DESTROY the whole concept. The ONLY Xterminal on the market
today that I know of that runs the server on the host is the low-end QUME.
And I ***STRONGLY** suggest that people AVIOD it.
>>
>> >>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...
So now, you not only know my users inside out, and my environment inside
out, you also know where I am and what the circomstances of my news reading
/posting is.
YOUR Arrogance is unbelievable.
I am getting really sick and tired of people thinking that just because they
work with some particular system design, that they think that design will
work the best anywhere. Nobody on the net knows what we do here. Nobody
there knows OUR system, or OUR users. It blows me away how unprofessional
you and a few of these other posters are.
-- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor.wyvern.com .uucp | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/