Image Map Image Map
Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 713141516171819 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 182

Thread: Anybody here actually collect Unix stuff?

  1. #161
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Outer Mongolia
    Posts
    1,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by legalize View Post
    However, I thought they had introduced some extensions and socket front/back end processing programs that improved X11 over a serial line to be usable (although a serial line is still significantly slower than ethernet). I wasn't able to dig anything up with a quick google search right now, but I'm pretty sure I've come across these things before.
    Likewise I also have vague memories of there being some kind of "low band" X11 extensions existing, but I also couldn't recall any/Google them at short notice, which makes me suspect they never really saw widespread use.(*)

    Your earlier point about X11 not playing well on portable-size screens (at least where the state of the art was through the 1990's) is of course also depressingly true. Without some kind of virtual desktop scrolling software anything under 1024x786 is *painfully* tight. I used to limp by with an 800x600 virtual/640x480 physical display on my first portable "Unix" machine, a 486 subnotebook, and it wasn't unusual for programs to open dialog boxes too large to fit on the screen. (It was a good idea to use a window manager that let you set up keybindings for moving/resizing windows for the cases in which the window controls ended being rendered offscreen because the dialog was programmed to pop up centered.)

    (*) Edit: Wikipedia page for LBX, Low Bandwidth X. Looks like that at least didn't really go anywhere.
    Last edited by Eudimorphodon; September 5th, 2019 at 12:49 PM.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UT, USA
    Posts
    333

    Default

    X11 itself doesn't really care about your screen size, but most modern window managers/UI paradigms assume a big-ish screen, I think.

    Yeah, LBX was the one I was thinking about.

    For my "X server on old school graphics terminal idea", a simple server is what I was thinking about. The X server would run as a user space client that maintained a framebuffer as a chunk of host memory. It would update the frame buffer in response to protocol requests and mirror the updates into a command stream to the terminal to make the terminal reflect the memory frame buffer. This wouldn't take advantage of local terminal primitives, but it would be the simplest to get working. User input is read from the serial port and turned into synthesized X events in server. It would work, but be really slow. You could optimize it more by taking advantage of specific terminal features, but if you just kept it stupid and send output to the terminal as pixel commands and input from the terminal synthesized as events you could get it to work on almost any terminal that can do pixel updates.

  3. #163

    Default

    I've just committed to buying a Digital DEC VT525 with its original keyboard for 400 GBP from the UK

  4. #164
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Outer Mongolia
    Posts
    1,465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by legalize View Post
    X11 itself doesn't really care about your screen size, but most modern window managers/UI paradigms assume a big-ish screen, I think.
    This was back in the 1990's, but I think it's understandable that X11 software authors didn't think about "PC sized" screens. After all, even really ancient UNIX workstations rarely sported any less than megapixel-class monitors. (Sun used 1152x900 as the "standard", read "low" resolution back as far as the 68010-based Sun-2, even on the color framebuffers.)

    One of the most odious offenders was the X11 version of Netscape. Its preferences dialog was YUGE; it's been a long time but I'm fairly certain it was one of those "I can't reach the buttons at all even with 800x600 to work with" problem children.

  5. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudimorphodon View Post
    I think it's understandable that X11 software authors didn't think about "PC sized" screens.
    Already sold, but all the native applications running on my Tektronix 400-series had primitives to get the screen size. This software was made for the OS VxWork (v5), which runs custom software, compiled for it.

    Such applications are a native browser, a console where you can launch telnet and ftp, a text editor, and a picture viewer.

    You needed to buy a license for this software, but when you set the resolution to the lowest available on the xterm and press the "reset" button, all the applications automagically adapt to the screen size.

    So this means that X11 had the potential to do it, so I believe that on PCs ... well, it was more about lazy programmers who simply did not implement stuff in the right way.

  6. #166

    Default

    back to my question regarding vt-term-in-laptop-shape, I have just found a new one example: the "Walkabout" made by "Data General". I don't know a lot about it, just aht it was DEC vt100 and vt220 compliant.

  7. #167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudimorphodon View Post
    This was back in the 1990's, but I think it's understandable that X11 software authors didn't think about "PC sized" screens. After all, even really ancient UNIX workstations rarely sported any less than megapixel-class monitors. (Sun used 1152x900 as the "standard", read "low" resolution back as far as the 68010-based Sun-2, even on the color framebuffers.)

    One of the most odious offenders was the X11 version of Netscape. Its preferences dialog was YUGE; it's been a long time but I'm fairly certain it was one of those "I can't reach the buttons at all even with 800x600 to work with" problem children.
    This was a real problem on the RISC laptops, too. Even 1024x768 was cramped, and 800x600 was nearly impossible (such as on the early PPC ThinkPads).
    I use my C128 because I am an ornery, stubborn, retro grouch. -- Bob Masse
    Machine room updated for 2019!: http://www.floodgap.com/etc/machines.html

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Northfield, MN USA
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eudimorphodon View Post
    One of the most odious offenders was the X11 version of Netscape. Its preferences dialog was YUGE; it's been a long time but I'm fairly certain it was one of those "I can't reach the buttons at all even with 800x600 to work with" problem children.
    True!

  9. Default

    LBX died in part because low bandwidth rapidly didn't become the problem - high latency did. There were other schemes that cached stuff better - like NX.

    Your scheme sounds rather close to VNC. VNC is surprisingly fast with a dumb display because you don't get back and forth latency and thus get real parallelism between the output stream and the renderer. There is even a VNC for javascript in browsers (noVNC) and it's quite funny confusing people with xdm as the top page of a web site

  10. #170

    Default

    Today's arrival: a Sun Ray 2-compatible Tadpole M1400, but unlike the Accutech Gobi8, this is x86-based (Celeron M 540). It has a nicer screen and even has a built-in web browser -- incredibly, it's Links 2.1pre33 -- plus WiFi, but it's bulkier and screams Chinese cheap PC laptop (because that's what it is, a gutted Compal FT01). It arrived in its original packaging and protective plastic sheeting. I don't think it was ever used.

    I'll have to get more work done on jOpenRay to support these systems since now I have two of them.

    https://www.floodgap.com/iv/3836
    https://www.floodgap.com/iv/3837
    https://www.floodgap.com/iv/3838
    I use my C128 because I am an ornery, stubborn, retro grouch. -- Bob Masse
    Machine room updated for 2019!: http://www.floodgap.com/etc/machines.html

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •