Subject: Re: Video subsystem...

From: [email-masked] (Tor Arntsen)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 13:27:16 +0200

On Jun 28,  1:24pm, Rogier Wolff wrote:
>>  HP X-terms (pa-based I think) are much much
>faster.
>
>Nope. They use Intel 960 processors.....
>
>					Rogier.

Yeah, I've got a couple of mails already correcting me on that point.
I've also got some good advice on how to fix those really *bad* looking
cheap displays..

Thanks,
Tor	([email-masked])

---

From: [email-masked] (Tor Arntsen)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 05:13:45 +0200

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
[...]
>
>The TMS34010 is *slow*.  It only has a 16 bit memory data bus, which has
>a max transfer of about 6MB/s at 40MHz.  This is because it is a very
>CISCy chip, with a not particularly fast memory interface (partly because
>all addressess are bit addresses, and the hardware is more complex).
>The 34020 is 32bit and probably much faster, but I think it is an
>unnecessary complication.  It would make the video inaccessable from
>the cpu (unless you want shared memory, ugh), making it much harder
>to program.  Neil almost certainly has his own views on this :-).
>
>Neither chip would require another rom on the board.

I've been using a TMS34010-based X-terminal.  I must agree that it is not
very fast, but it is not as slow as e.g. cheap NCD-terminals (I have no
idea what's inside those).  The TMS-based one is kind of middle of the road.
A Sun SLC running X is faster, HP X-terms (pa-based I think) are much much
faster.

Tor

---

From: [email-masked] (Tor Arntsen)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1993 05:25:10 +0200

I wrote:
[...]
>very fast, 
Maybe I'm a bit unfair here, that terminal is also running the X-server
in the 34010.

>but it is not as slow as e.g. cheap NCD-terminals (I have no
But I think the HP X-terms do the equivalent, i.e. I think they use the
pa-chip to do both the video and the X-server.  I may be on thin ice here.

Tor