Aucbvax.6067 fa.info-terms utcsrgv!utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!info-terms Wed Feb 3 13:48:34 1982 Re: Evaluation of CIT-101 >From Admin.JQJ@SU-SCORE Wed Feb 3 13:37:23 1982 One thing to check for whenever evaluating a "lookalike" terminal is varying padding requirements. For the VT100, the requirements are highest on things like smooth scrolling and scrolling with a region defined (scrolling the whole screen turns out to be quite fast). If your lookalike has HIGHER padding requirements than the VT100, then obviously it may not be able to run the same software, particularly at 9600 baud or 19.2Kb. This is, of course, not a problem if your software uses XON/XOFF instead of time fills, but some programs (e.g. Emacs) use ^S/^Q for their own purposes, so MUST use fill characters or delays. Another thing to be careful of is special features that differ between different versions of DEC Ansi terminals. Among the ones I've found to present problems are the scrolling region, alternate character sets, end of screen behavior, and graphics. For example, the Gigi is almost a VT100 but with horrible padding requirements and no scrolling region; experience writing VT100 simulators for various machines seems to indicate that scrolling regions are one thing you tend to get wrong (e.g. on the VT100 one can't have a 1-line scrolling region, and can't do relative cursor motion out of a scrolling region without totally confusing the terminal). Similarly, what happens when you write a character in the last position of the screen (particularly if you've cleared auto wrap)? ------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/ This Usenet Oldnews Archive article may be copied and distributed freely, provided: 1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles. 2. The following notice remains appended to each copy: The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996 Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.