🚀 go-pugleaf

>Is there a way to use a DOS application from an X-Station?

There are several options, most DON'T support graphics.

1. Use a PC as an X-station (e.g. a combination of MS-Windows and some
   X server software, or DV/X or OS/2, or a 386 Unix (Linux is good) with
   both X software and a DOS emulator). This gives maximum compatibility,
   and best DOS performance, but X performance might be a bit poor. It can
   be just as expensive as giving everyone both an X terminal and a DOS
   machine, though!

2. Run a software like Desqview/X on a goodly sized PC, so that conventional
   X terminals can run text-based DOS programs and MS-Windows 3.0 programs
   in standard mode. There are at least a couple of other products claiming
   (as far as I can tell) to do the same sort of thing... OS/2 sounds like
   it might be a possibility.  I'm just about to try these sorts of options
   out.  They tend to be a bit expensive (the basic product, like DV/X or OS/2
   might not be, but you have to add lots of software extras on) but at least
   it is only one machine, used by several X terminals.

2b. You can use a program called TELNETD on a PC (286 will do), to allow one
   Unix user (dumb terminal, X terminal, whatever) at a time to run text-only
   DOS programs.  Moderately economical, speed is similar to running a PC with
   SIMCGA.  Contact erick@development.watstar.uwaterloo.ca; as far as I know
   the software is free, but that might be only to universities. The version
   I used was experimental, and a bit too limited, but it has probably been
   improved a lot by now.  You can run TelnetD under MSWindows (only one at
   a time per PC) and carry on using the PC, although I had a few problems
   with it crashing.

3. Run PC a emulator on the Unix box.  Gobbles a lot of CPU time, even with
   modern idle-detection software.  Best if the user is migrating from the
   PC and will phase-out PC software, and few people want to run it at the
   same time (or you have several CPU-servers to spare for the job). Expect
   something like an 80188 running at 2 MHz from a lightly-loaded Sparc 1.
   The freeware "pcm" package is pretty good (no graphics mode, but it is
   still only version 0.65), in some ways better than Soft-PC and other
   commercial products. Contact Gary Beihl (gary.beihl@columbiasc.ncr.com)
   for information.

4. You can connect a PC's serial port to a Unix (or whatever) box, do STTY AUX
   at the console, then run some (not all) Text-based software. You'd be
   surprised what doesn't work properly, not just software that writes straight
   to the screen but simple things like the backspace key at the MSDOS 3.3
   prompt, etc.  Some sofware for remote use/control of a PC might make this
   better, but all I've seen expects another PC, not a Unix system, on the 
   other end.

5. There are a few other arrangements, e.g. a Sparc or Motorola 88k card in
   a PC - gives convenience, pretty good performance (I'm told they can make
   the PC even faster for graphics, and disk?) but cost is similar to option 1
   above.

6. Have a look in the comp.unix.msdos news group for a thread about MSWindows
   programs running under Unix. Personally, I feel that emulating a windows
   application under Unix has a better chance of giving you speed close to
   the "real thing" than emulating simply the Intel chip, since you can then
   execute rather than interpret the MS-Windows calls. But that's a long-term
   hope, I guess.

Mark Aitchison, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.