You (Andreas Busse) wrote:
[Lots of stuff I agree with]
> * Ethernet. This is a *must*. We can't call the thing
> "workstation" if it doesn't have an ethernet port.
For me this is an option. I'd like to have ethernet, but I don't need
it on board. You can put ethernet on the I/O bus, since it doesn't need
> * Video on board. Don't laugh, but this is an *option*.
> * Color graphics on board. I'd say, this is even more an *option*.
> * Intelligent video on board. This is definitly an *option*.
Fast graphics is a must for me. It is one of the reasons why I'd buy
such a thing. I think that an onboard dumb frame buffer is the best
solution. Using a conventional ISA VGA card will be slower (probably
even with accelerator), and VESA local bus or some other interface for
high performance graphics cards will be difficult. I think we should
put our brains into a clean design, not into workarounds for intel
> * ISA Bus... I would say: we *do* need exactly one slot.
> Every slot more is an *option*. Why ?
I think we need some kind of I/O bus. ISA is nice for people who
already have ISA cards or prefer to buy hardware instead of designing
it. A simple proprietary bus may be better for the hardware gurus (and
chaeper). I am not sure what I would prefer, but I am leaning more
towards the ISA bus. I would keep the number of slots small, however
> This way we don't have the trouble to write our own
But this will be the most fun.
> nor do we have the trouble with timings which
> most monitors can handle but exactly the one *you* have not.
This could be a problem. But I need a new monitor anyway :-)
| _ | Peter J. Holzer | Think of it |
| |_|_) | Technical University Vienna | as evolution |
| | | | Computer Science/Real-Time Systems | in action! |
| __/ | firstname.lastname@example.org | Tony Rand |