smbancroft@ucdavis.edu (Steven Bancroft) (04/11/89)
I am in desperate need of a terminal program that supports (at least) vt100 terminal emulation, and works at 9600 baud. If anyone has ANY information as to where I might be able to get one of these programs, please reply through EMAIL to me. Thanks much!!!!! Steven Bancroft smbancroft@ucdavis.edu smbancroft@ucdavis.BITNET P.S. Of course the program would work on a c-128 or c-64.
izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) (04/11/89)
> From: smbancroft@ucdavis.edu (Steven Bancroft) > Message-ID: <3924@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> > > I am in desperate need of a terminal program that supports (at least) vt100 > terminal emulation, and works at 9600 baud. > P.S. Of course the program would work on a c-128 or c-64. I'll be sending you DesTerm 128, a shareware terminal for the 128 that should fit the bill. -- Geoffrey Welsh - via FidoNet node 1:221/162 UUCP: ...!watmath!isishq!171!izot Internet: izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG
brendan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Brendan Kehoe) (04/12/89)
In article <3924@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> smbancroft@ucdavis.edu (Steven Bancroft) writes: >I am in desperate need of a terminal program that supports (at least) vt100 >terminal emulation, and works at 9600 baud. I STRONGLY recommend DesTerm by Matt Desmond (and Geoffrey "Mr. Usenet" :).. it's one of the best terms I've seen in a loooong time (in my humble opinion, save for a lack of buffer editor, split screen, and login scripts, it beats the living PANTS off of BTPro...it's got a higher "professional" look to it, it supports xmodem chk/crc/1k, punter, ymodem-batch, you name it ...it is a very well-programmed and thought-out program). It's on GEnie, Portal, and QLink that I know of...I assume it's hit a number of boards by now. Trust me.. you want this puppy..according to the docs, it'll do 9600 with reliable throughput. -- Brendan Kehoe brendan@cup.portal.com | GEnie: B.KEHOE | Oh no! I forgot to say goodbye brendan@chinet.chi.il.us | CI$: 71750,2501 | to my mind! brendan@jolnet.orpk.il.us | Galaxy: Brendan | - Abby Normal
sct@a.lanl.gov (Stephen Tenbrink) (04/13/89)
In article <3924@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, smbancroft@ucdavis.edu (Steven Bancroft) writes: > I am in desperate need of a terminal program that supports (at least) vt100 > terminal emulation, and works at 9600 baud. If anyone has ANY information If you need this for a C64 you may be dissapointed. The C64 can barely keep up with 2400 baud emulators written in assembly language. I'm not sure about the C128.
brendan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US (Brendan Kehoe) (04/15/89)
In article <866@a.lanl.gov> sct@a.lanl.gov (Stephen Tenbrink) writes: > If you need this for a C64 you may be dissapointed. The C64 can >barely keep up with 2400 baud emulators written in assembly language. I'm >not sure about the C128. This has been the assumed standard because of the incredibly bad Kernel RS232 routines in it..but Chris Smeets (in a telecomm conference on GEnie) said he had some source written by someone he knew that would let the 64 crank at up to 4800 baud (because of a total re-writing of the rs232 handling)...I have yet to see this source, but I'm convinced that such a thing is possible, with the right code. -- Brendan Kehoe brendan@cup.portal.com | GEnie: B.KEHOE | Oh no! I forgot to say goodbye brendan@chinet.chi.il.us | CI$: 71750,2501 | to my mind! brendan@jolnet.orpk.il.us | Galaxy: Brendan | - Abby Normal
fred@cbmvax.UUCP (Fred Bowen) (04/18/89)
In article <486@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US> brendan@jolnet.ORPK.IL.US writes: >In article <866@a.lanl.gov> sct@a.lanl.gov (Stephen Tenbrink) writes: >> If you need this for a C64 you may be dissapointed. The C64 can >>barely keep up with 2400 baud emulators written in assembly language. I'm >>not sure about the C128. > > This has been the assumed standard because of the incredibly bad Kernel >RS232 routines in it..but Chris Smeets (in a telecomm conference on GEnie) >said he had some source written by someone he knew that would let the 64 >crank at up to 4800 baud (because of a total re-writing of the rs232 >handling)...I have yet to see this source, but I'm convinced that such a >thing is possible, with the right code. 'Fraid I cannot let this pass without pointing out one small detail. While I, like anyone one else, would likely implement the Kernel's RS232 handler differently, it could be argued that it was written that way to allow BASIC some time to execute. It was also written to emulate a 6551 at a time when 300 baud modems were the rage. Custom drivers which don't have to run along with BASIC, don't need to emulate a 6551, and don't have to fit in a limited ROM space can use the time for faster I/O. The processor has only so many cycles- you can spend 'em banging bits, doing expansive terminal emulation, whatever (like running a BASIC interpreter:-), but these are tradeoffs- you don't get faster data rates without giving up something. Sure the C64 can do higher nominal data rates- but what is the actual data rate? I'd bet it's still pretty darn close to 12/2400. And what was given up to make this possible? I think that the higher data rates would score big, though, with data transfer protocols, where the communication is mostly one way, the packet size is limited and usually known in advance, there is a small set of "commands" which appear in expected places, and most if not all features of the "terminal" (such as screen display and even keyscan) are suspended until the transfer is finished. -- -- Fred Bowen uucp: {uunet|rutgers|pyramid}!cbmvax!fred arpa: cbmvax!fred@uunet.uu.net tele: 215 431-9100 Commodore Electronics, Ltd., 1200 Wilson Drive, West Chester, PA, 19380