Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!ogcvax!omsvax!icalqa!hplabs!sri-unix!
warbob.rice@Rand-Relay
From: warbob.rice%Rand-Re...@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Blit solution to windows
Message-ID: <4266@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 13-Aug-83 12:33:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.4266
Posted: Sat Aug 13 12:33:39 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Aug-83 12:48:07 EDT
Lines: 11

From:  Bob.Warfield <warbob.rice@Rand-Relay>

The Blit is *NOT* an appropriate solution to the problem of providing
windows for Unix. It is *HARDWARE* limited in the number of windows it
supports. The versions I've heard about actually use a separate RS232
line for each window. Furthermore, there is no icon support. I realize
everybody doesn't like icons, but I do, and I think each user should be
given the choice. This is easy to do, since most icons can be replaced
by a box containing text ala VisiOn.

					Bob Warfield

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!cbosgd!djb@Berkeley
From: djb@Berke...@cbosgd.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Re: Blit solution to windows
Message-ID: <4316@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Aug-83 11:19:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.4316
Posted: Wed Aug 17 11:19:28 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Aug-83 03:29:18 EDT
Lines: 21

From:  cbosgd!djb@Berkeley (David J. Bryant)

I don't know where Bob Warfield (warbob%rice.Rice@Rand-Relay) got his
information, but it is very, very wrong.  The blit (and when I say
blit I also mean the Teletype 5620) is not hardware limited in the number 
of windows that can be supported.  It does not, and never has used a 
separate RS232 line for each window.  The multiplexing is done over a 
single RS232 port by special programs that run in the terminal and the host.  
You can run as many windows as you want, and over a single terminal-host 
RS232 connection, although having way too many is not a good idea (you can 
exhaust the memory available for window management, but it takes lots of 
overlapped window area to do this).

Further, there most certainly is icon support.  You can design your own
icons as bitmaps, and manipulate them all over the screen.  Quite a lot
of the blit programs (cip, for example, and anything that uses the mouse)
make good use of icons for a wide variety of applications.  It's very easy
to do.

	David Bryant   Bell Labs   Columbus, OH   (614) 860-4516
	(cbosg!djb)

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!FISC...@RUTGERS.ARPA
From: FISC...@RUTGERS.ARPA@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Re: Blit solution to windows, the "window solution" in general
Message-ID: <4315@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17-Aug-83 14:50:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.4315
Posted: Wed Aug 17 14:50:10 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 21-Aug-83 03:28:28 EDT
Lines: 16

From:  Ron <FISC...@RUTGERS.ARPA>

I just recently (last week) saw a BLIT running multiple windows
through a multiplexed serial line (at 19.2k baud).  It was connected
to a VAX 780 thing.

This was at a demo at the labs that was arranged for some folks from
Rutgers interested in High-level debugging.

I think the whole idea of windows isn't very well used nowadays.  What
we wind up with are literally piles of windows on screen with little
organization to them.  Worse, each one tends to be a scrolling ASR33
simulator.

(ron)
-------

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site whuxlb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!floyd!whuxlb!bjb
From: b...@whuxlb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Re: Blit solution to windows - (nf)
Message-ID: <1281@whuxlb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Aug-83 20:56:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxlb.1281
Posted: Fri Aug 19 20:56:37 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Aug-83 09:18:10 EDT
Sender: b...@whuxlb.UUCP
Organization: Bell Labs, Whippany
Lines: 44

#R:sri-arpa:-426600:whuxlb:20600001:000:1679
whuxlb!bjb    Aug 19 20:56:00 1983


I am not involved in "5620" (the product that sprung from the blit) development,
but I do have a blit and feel that the previous article was rather a large
bit of mis-information.

	The Blit is *NOT* an appropriate solution to the problem of providing
	windows for Unix. It is *HARDWARE* limited in the number of windows it
	supports.
	
The blit is NOT hardware limited to the number of windows (7) that it
supports. The blit driver, internal software and packet format limit
the number of windows. I have been told by a "very reliable" source that
this problem is easily resolved by using some unused bits in the packet.

	The versions I've heard about actually use a separate RS232
	line for each window.

Not only untrue, but silly. I wonder if the author of the original article
is really talking about a blit at all.  The blit has one serial port ONLY!
It has no other i/o other then the keyboard.  The 5620 will have two
serial and one parallel port.
	
	Furthermore, there is no icon support. I realize
	everybody doesn't like icons, but I do, and I think each user should be
	given the choice. This is easy to do, since most icons can be replaced
	by a box containing text ala VisiOn.

Again completely false. The blit has very good icon support. Programs
running in the blit can easily load or change icons. Extensive use of
icons is made by the programs that come with the blit. The blit
(I am not sure about the 5620) even has a icon editor.

The 5620 dot-mapped-display terminal was shown at usenix.  Each of the
assertions made by the author of the previous article would be obviously
and patently untrue to anyone who saw it there.



			B. Beare
			...!whuxlb!bjb

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!alice!rob
From: r...@alice.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: from the horse's keyboard
Message-ID: <2134@alice.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Aug-83 21:32:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.2134
Posted: Mon Aug 22 21:32:15 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 23-Aug-83 15:28:22 EDT
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 29

enough people jumped in to correct the error's in wake's article that
i will only mention that the corrections are correct.

fischer's complaint about windows being badly utilized is more serious.
if what you stack up are asr33 windows, what you get is stacks of
asr33 windows.  if the blit is what he is complaining about, and
that is implied by his message, i counter that there is much more
going on than that.  the default window program is a little scrolling
terminal, but it is often replaced by programs that make much better
use of the facilities available, especially the graphics.  we have
windows that edit files, debug programs, monitor system performance,
edit icons and, of course, play games.

the asr33 windows are themselves stopgaps.  my personal version of the
software runs by default a window that lets you edit the text on the
screen, scroll around in it, and copy it to and from unix and the
other windows.  nothing at all like an asr33 (or a concept 100, for
that matter).

but i think fischer is complaining that the windows aren't interrelated
in some deep way as they are in, say, smalltalk.  i argue that the
blit's success comes largely from the independence of the windows,
which capitalizes on the multiprogramming capabilities of unix.
there are plenty of examples of this in action, at least one of which
he admits to having seen: debugging when the debugger and the subject
process are decoupled is a whole new experience.

so, the windows are quite well used, thank you, although they
might not be used the way fischer expects.

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site tty3b.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!gummo!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!
ihnp4!we13!otuxa!tty3b!mjk
From: m...@tty3b.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Re: from the horse's keyboard
Message-ID: <188@tty3b.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Aug-83 15:38:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: tty3b.188
Posted: Tue Aug 23 15:38:09 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Aug-83 10:31:02 EDT
References: <2134@alice.UUCP>
Organization: Teletype Corp., Skokie, Ill
Lines: 28

If Rob Pike is the horse, I don't know what we are here at Teletype.  I
won't speculate, either.

Since there is some confusion over what applies to the blit and what to the
5620, maybe this note will help clear that up.

The 5620 is a redesign of the Blit, incorporating many of Rob's (and others)
ideas.  It uses a 32-bit micro (the BELLMAC-32 [trademark of Western Electric])
and come with 256K bytes RAM, 64K bytes ROM standard.  The memory is planned to be
expandable to 1 MB RAM, 256K ROM.  The 5620 software is pretty much a straight
"clean up and port" of some of the Blit software.  Because of the limited bandwidth
of the porters (and the seemingly limitless bandwidth of Blit software developers),
I have to say "some"; in the first release (this November), not all Blit software
will be available for the 5620.  Suffice to say that the most important pieces
(Tek 4014 emulation, multiple windows, jim text editor, cross-compiler and debugger) 
will be.  Some others (font editor, fancier terminal program) may be.  But don't
worry that the rest of the Blit software won't be forthcoming; it will be.

All Rob's other comments about usefulness of windows on the Blit apply
equally to the 5620.  The ability to have a program assume control
of a window is a very powerful feature.  It means, as Rob indicated, that
you can do terminal emulation.  It means you can design a custom terminal
personality and load it into a window.  Imagine a terminal designed to run
vi (if that's your favorite editor); if you can write a program to implement
that terminal, you can convert windows on your 5620 into that "vi terminal".

Mike Kelly
Teletype Corp. R&D
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk