Date: Mon, 5 Jan 1998 11:15:04 -0500 From: "David E. Wexelblat" <dwex@DataFocus.com> To: "'devel@XFree86.Org'" <devel@XFree86.Org> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: interested in working on windows port (sorry for cross post) Message-ID: <CE3283EB3AE9D011BF4B0020AFF8FDD72ED4A1@hercules.fairfax.datafocus.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Who is your target audience? Why on earth would I set up a windows box that is doing nothing but running X? This seems extraordinarily useless - if I wanted a dedicated X machine, I'd run Linux on it. The only reason to put X on a Windows PC is interoperability. > -----Original Message----- > From: Alfred Perlstein > Sent: Monday, January 05, 1998 11:05 AM > To: devel@XFree86.Org > Cc: hackers@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: interested in working on windows port (sorry for > cross post) > > i have no interest in making a "let windows be my window manager X" > that is > garbage, i've seen them and they are horrible, my main interest is > getting > a full screen port done with XDM logon abilities. using windows as my > window manager gives me a chill and ruins the whole experiance for me > :) > > if possible a "full screen in one window" would be a later project... > > i do not want to "stray" from the Xfree86 model, i would like to have > this > port be maintained easily, not as a one time port and forget about it > deal > where so much is kludged around that maintaining it is impossible. > > to me, DirectX+fullscreen is the way to go. > > i've seen "in window" X servers and the performance is horrid, why run > X > and make it slow? > > -Alfred > > ---------- > > From: David E. Wexelblat <dwex@datafocus.com> > > To: 'devel@XFree86.Org' > > Cc: hackers@freebsd.org > > Subject: RE: interested in working on windows port (sorry for cross > post) > > Date: Monday, January 05, 1998 8:49 AM > > > > Well, I have a great deal of experience with PC X servers (check > > out the work URL...). I have to be careful with what I say, as > > we are a source licensee for one of the PC X server vendors, and > > I've been inside their sources. I will only give some general > > comments. > > > > 1) From what I have been told by more than one PC X server > > manufacturer, DirectX is going to be a waste of time. DirectX > > only gets major performance improvements when it can take over > > the entire screen. When running in a window, it's not a major > > win over raw GDI code. As far as I know, none of the PC X server > > vendors use DirectX. > > > > That said - Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 3 provides most of > > DirectX 3 for Windows NT. DirectX isn't supported at all prior to > > SP3, and DirectX 5 support isn't planned to be available until > > Windows NT 5.0 (which is currently in Beta1). > > > > 2) All the PC X servers operate in one of two modes: single-window > > or multiple-window. Single-window is a traditional X server main > > window, living in a single Windows window. Basically, the Windows > > window becomes a single large framebuffer. This is easy to > implement, > > but X apps don't coexist well with Windows apps this way. > > > > Multi-window mode basically has no visible X root window. Each X > > top-level window is a Windows top-level window. In this mode, the X > > server provides some sort of local window manager, so that the X > apps > > are both ICCCM-compliant, and windows-friendly. The good ones even > > recognize Motif window manager hints for decorations, etc. > > > > I have never seen anyone use anything other than multi-window mode > > (well, > > we do have a couple of ISVs selling turnkey boxes, who I have been > told > > do use single-window mode). > > > > 3) Palette management is a major headache. In a normal X server, > the > > X server controls the hardware palette, and can do what it wants. > In a > > PC X server, Windows controls the palette. There's a lot of code > > involved > > in getting X color handling to work "right" under Windows. > > > > In addition, most of the major PC X server vendors have implemented > > 8-bit-pseudo-color visuals on top of 16/24/32-bit true-color > visuals. > > This > > is because most PCs these days are in high/true-color mode, and most > X > > apps > > fall down if the default visual isn't 8-bit pseudo-color. As far as > I > > know, > > this is all done with software; I've been told that Windows provides > no > > way > > to get to the RAMDAC to do it in hardware even if the RAMDAC > supports > > it. > > > > 4) Device management is also a pain (keyboard & mouse), because you > have > > to > > go through windows. > > > > 5) Font management is interesting. All the PC X servers I have seen > > have X > > bitmap & scaled fonts, but not in .pcf format. They have them in > > Windows > > .fon format, and provide their own font compilers. I've never > > completely > > understood why they bother with this - if they're going to provide > > X-specific > > fonts, why not leave then in X-specific formats? No one has yet > written > > a > > font server that allows use of native Windows fonts, that I have > seen. > > > > -- > > David Wexelblat Phone: (703) 803-3343 x370 > > DataFocus Incorporated Fax: (703) 803-3344 > > 12450 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 400 mailto:dwex@datafocus.com > > Fairfax, VA 22033-3821 http://www.datafocus.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Alfred Perlstein > > > Sent: Friday, January 02, 1998 6:31 AM > > > To: devel@XFree86.Org > > > Cc: hackers@freebsd.org > > > Subject: interested in working on windows port (sorry for cross > > > post) > > > > > > (please excuse the cross post, i'm really looking for help and > this is > > > a > > > strange multiplatform subject...) > > > > > > I'm interested in making a windows 95/NT port of Xfree86, > > > i plan on using DirectX to support fast accesses to the graphical > > > hardware. > > > > > > if anyone has the time to answer a couple of questions it would be > > > greatly > > > appreciated. > > > > > > 1) can anyone recommend a free c/cpp compiler/enviornment for > this? > > > i've looked at DJGPP,RSXNT, and the cygnus thingy and so far: > > > DJGPP doesn't support win32. > > > RSXNT hardly is docmented and doesn't seem to be useful as a > > > UNIX to WIN32 > > > porting tool things like sockets don't seem to be implemented. > > > cygnus doesn't appeal to me because of hardcore GPL license they > > > have. > > > > > > i do NOT mind giving credit where credit is due... but i'm not > > > too keen on > > > releasing my source, i DO however, plan on the product being free. > > > > > > 2) if i use direct-X does anyone know if it will work on NT? i > think > > > mircosoft doesn't support DirectX on NT, or at least not past > version > > > 3... > > > > > > 3) what books can i get on the low level details of X? anything > on > > > how the > > > X11 source tree is set up? anyone have any pointers to good > > > FAQs/tutorials? > > > > > > thank you, > > > -Alfred
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CE3283EB3AE9D011BF4B0020AFF8FDD72ED4A1>