aip@j.cc.purdue.edu (Bret Johnson) (08/12/87)
Does anyone know if the ANSI driver that is included with MS-DOS is a full implementation of the ANSI standard. I have a copy of the standard and it lists about three times as many command sequences as does my DOS manual.
boykin@custom.UUCP (Joseph Boykin) (08/13/87)
In article <5138@j.cc.purdue.edu>, aip@j.cc.purdue.edu (Bret Johnson) writes: > > Does anyone know if the ANSI driver that is included with MS-DOS is a > full implementation of the ANSI standard. I have a copy of the standard and > it lists about three times as many command sequences as does my DOS manual. ANSI.SYS contains a *very* minimal subset of the ANSI standard set of escape sequences (X3.64). It is also relatively slow. If you're looking for ANSI compatability there are two alternatives; NANSI.SYS, which is public domain or sharewhare (I'm not sure which). NANSI replaces ANSI.SYS and provides a) more ANSI compatabile escape sequences (the most useful ones being insert/delete line/character) as well as being a better/faster implementation. The second alternative is FANSI-CONSOLE which is a commercial product ($75 + $4 S&H with manual). FANSI replaces both ANSI.SYS and the screen and keyboard portions of the ROM BIOS. FANSI is a full X3.64 implementation, has VT100 emulation and gives you such things as a larger type-ahead buffer (255 characters), auto-screen dim, the ability to change the keyboard repeat rate, length of the bell, give you key click, etc. By merely installing FANSI you'll see your 'TYPE' command come out about twice as fast. FANSI is faster than NANSI and provides alot more features, of course it's also more expensive. Note that, like with most products, its not too hard to get it cheaper. Programmers connection sells it for $62, we sell it to our PC/VI customers for $60, etc. Joe Boykin Custom Software Systems ...necntc!custom!boykin
johnl@ima.ISC.COM (John R. Levine) (08/13/87)
In article <5138@j.cc.purdue.edu> usenet: !pur-ee!edward (edward@ga.ecn.purdue.edu) writes: > Does anyone know if the ANSI driver that is included with MS-DOS is a >full implementation of the ANSI standard. I have a copy of the standard and >it lists about three times as many command sequences as does my DOS manual. I have never seen a full implementation of the ANSI standard for escape sequences. The standard suffers from a severe case of union-itis, that is, it contains the union of all features that anybody ever asked for. Common ANSI terminals such as the VT-100, IBM 3101, and their descendants, implement a larger set of functions than does the DOS ANSI driver, but still far from the whole thing. -- John R. Levine, Cambridge MA, +1 617 492 3869 { ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.something The Iran-Contra affair: None of this would have happened if Ronald Reagan were still alive.
feg@clyde.UUCP (08/14/87)
In article <773@custom.UUCP>, boykin@custom.UUCP (Joseph Boykin) writes: > In article <5138@j.cc.purdue.edu>, aip@j.cc.purdue.edu (Bret Johnson) writes: > > Does anyone know if the ANSI driver that is included with MS-DOS is a > > full implementation of the ANSI standard. I have a copy of the standard and > > it lists about three times as many command sequences as does my DOS manual. > > ANSI.SYS contains a *very* minimal subset of the ANSI standard > set of escape sequences (X3.64). It is also relatively slow. > If you're looking for ANSI compatability there are two alternatives; > NANSI.SYS, which is public domain or sharewhare (I'm not sure which). > > The second alternative is FANSI-CONSOLE which is a commercial > FANSI is faster than NANSI and provides alot more features, of course The Leading Edge Model M running 7.2Mhz and CGA shows NANSI runs faster than Fansi if less flutter and no colored snow are criteria. When Fansi set for no colored snow, flutter is very objectionable with CGA and writing speed definitely slower. This may be a characteristic of CGA (a lousy implementation, anyway), but if you have a color crt and are using CGA, flutter can get to you fairly quickly. Forrest Gehrke
clark@killer.UUCP (Clark Brown) (08/14/87)
In article <5138@j.cc.purdue.edu>, aip@j.cc.purdue.edu (Bret Johnson) writes: > Does anyone know if the ANSI driver that is included with MS-DOS is a > full implementation of the ANSI standard. I have a copy of the standard and > it lists about three times as many command sequences as does my DOS manual. The ansi.sys driver is a severe subset of the total standard. There is a replacement for it that is pseudo-freeware and is Excellent. It implements the full standard, speeds up screen access, has many optional features.
henderso@utcsri.UUCP (08/17/87)
In article <1337@killer.UUCP> clark@killer.UUCP (Clark Brown) writes: >In article <5138@j.cc.purdue.edu>, aip@j.cc.purdue.edu (Bret Johnson) writes: >> Does anyone know if the ANSI driver that is included with MS-DOS is a >> full implementation of the ANSI standard. I have a copy of the standard and >> it lists about three times as many command sequences as does my DOS manual. >The ansi.sys driver is a severe subset of the total standard. There is a >replacement for it that is pseudo-freeware and is Excellent. It implements >the full standard, speeds up screen access, has many optional features. Fansiconsole also has some problems. First, it is incompatible with a lot of software. Second it takes about 40K of memory away from the space usable under DOS. In summary, its a mixed blessing. -- Mark C. Henderson Department of Mathematics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1 CSNet: henderso@csri.toronto.edu OR henderso%csri@toronto.csnet ARPA: henderso%csri.toronto.edu@relay.cs.net UUCP: {allegra,cornell,decvax,decwrl,ihnp4,sask,uw-beaver,utzoo}!utcsri!henderso {watmath,ubc-vision,calgary,dalcs,pyramid,seismo,musocs}!utai!utcsri!henderso {mnetor,cbosgd}!utgpu!utcsri!henderso BITNET/NETNORTH: henderso@csri.utoronto EARN/CDNNET : henderso@csri.toronto.cdn From Sept 1/87, Dept. of Mathematics, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, U.S.A. henderso@uoregon.csnet {tektronix,hp-pcd,ogcvax}!uoregon!henderso