X performance improved more by?

[Grant DeLorean]

gaf at uucs1.UUCP (gaf) writes:

>In article <67 at oink.UUCP> jep at oink.UUCP (James E. Prior) writes:
>>
>>If you are serious about wanting to do faxt X, then by a late model 
>>video board THAT IS ALREADY SUPPORTED WITH A DRIVER FROM YOUR UNIX
>>VENDOR, that has a graphics CPU.  

>I would agree with these comments.  bitblt operations on our Orchid
>ProDesigner VGA were terribly slow - to the point that our terminal
>emulator program ran at an effective rate of 2400 baud.  Tests showed
>that it was the bitblt operations involved in scrolling a line at a time
>which was the bottleneck.  We switched to an 8514/A video board and are
>quite happy with it (except that it takes another interrupt, of which
>there are precious few).


 If you bought the Paradise 8514/a Plus you don't need it to use an
interrupt. Take the jumper off and the interupt is disabled. That is
the default way for the board to come (and the way the defualt drivers
for DOS and the ISC server expect it to be). 

 As to only going with a board supported by the place you got your
X from (in this case, ISC), that isn't really necessary. I can name
several boards, like the Hurcules Graphics Station and the NEC
Graphics Engine that are not supported by ISC but have 3rd party
servers available that work just fine. There are also replacement
X systems available, such as the one from MetroLink, which will
give you X11r4 rather than the X11r3 that ISC, SCO and ESIX
distribute. I am running it right now, on a Hurcules Graphics Station
card. I admit that I am beta testing the Hurcules server for them,
but it is coming together nicely and the rest of the package is
not in beta. There are many options out there, if one looks.
-- 
 Grant DeLorean  (grant at bluemoon)    {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!grant