From mlk@hpfcoll Tue Jul  3 13:47 MDT 1990
Received: from hpfcmlk by hpfclw.HP.COM; Tue, 3 Jul 90 13:47:01 mdt
Received: by hpfcoll.HP.COM; Tue, 3 Jul 90 13:47:52 mdt
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 90 13:47:52 mdt
From: Mike Kolesar <mlk@hpfcoll>
Full-Name: Mike Kolesar
Message-Id: <9007031947.AA10800@hpfcoll.HP.COM>
To: dew@hpfclw, jwh@hpfclw, jws@hpfclw, mlc@hpfcrt, mlk@hpfcoll
Subject: Re:  PaWS and MACE
Cc: schink@hpisla
Status: RO

Jeff,

Wow!  Thanks for getting us some real data on MACE and the compatibility
with S300 story.  The new VGA display is both a shock and a high cost.  It
alone destroys a large part of the simple 'just works' compatibility model
that I was hoping for.  The specification of the VGA is likely for cost
reasons.  It also makes us PC compatible so that the HTBASIC programs could
port to S300 more easily and produce identical graphics as on the PC.  (Note
that HTBASIC is from a 3rd party...)

Let's get our lobby for compatible feature sets in the display, such as
color map, into the hardware team.  Maybe this could be a requirement...

We need to keep the costs to get onto MACE down.  Both PWS and RMB/WS are
jeopardized in schedule and resources.  Perhaps a little 'strike' saying
that neither will support MACE is needed to get the requirements to 
include compatibility for the displays.  Since MACE is for the MA/IA market,
having neither RMB nor PWS would get someone's attention.  Let's do what
we can to get the hardware to be easily supported from the drivers that we
have or a close derivative.  Applications can not tolerate a change in the
system display that can't be handled at the driver level.

Thanks again,

Mike K.

