stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) (01/10/89)
All this discussion about the AT&T 630 terminal (the derivative
of the Blit) got me wondering exactly what it was (I know what
the Blit is/was). I called AT&T and they claim the list price
is $1,225 - I was expecting something in the $2k ballpark (or more).
What software is available for it ? The AT&T literature says
it "all" comes with System V, Release 3. My SVR3.2 manuals
(for the 386) have man pages for layers(1), xt(7) and the like,
but what sort of other tools are available ?? I recall Rob
Pike's posting a few months back saying that the sam editor was
now available from the Toolchest. I've heard of a program called
proof that is a ditroff-previewer, which, if available, would convince
me to order the terminal immediately.
What I'd really like is the controlling software that can run with
4.3 BSD on a VAX. Does this exist ? If so, are there any tools
to go with it on a VAX?
Richard Stevens
Health Systems International, New Haven, CT
stevens@hsi.com
... { uunet | yale } ! hsi ! stevensgwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (01/11/89)
In article <242@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) writes: >All this discussion about the AT&T 630 terminal (the derivative >of the Blit) got me wondering exactly what it was (I know what >the Blit is/was). I called AT&T and they claim the list price >is $1,225 - I was expecting something in the $2k ballpark (or more). The price has been continually decreasing. There are options that can raise the price. The base 640K memory is probably enough for most purposes but can be expanded. If you would like to attach to TWO host systems AND a serial printer (for screen dumps, etc.) then an extra serial interface option is available. That's how mine is set up. (My first host is a PACX terminal switch and the second is the Sun-3/50M also on my desk. My printer is an H-P ThinkJet.) >What software is available for it ? The AT&T literature says >it "all" comes with System V, Release 3. My SVR3.2 manuals >(for the 386) have man pages for layers(1), xt(7) and the like, >but what sort of other tools are available ?? I recall Rob >Pike's posting a few months back saying that the sam editor was >now available from the Toolchest. I've heard of a program called >proof that is a ditroff-previewer, which, if available, would convince >me to order the terminal immediately. The basic layers multiplexing is a standard part of UNIX System V Release 3 ("basic windowing utilities" package). Special applications such as "proof" and "sam" must be obtained from other sources. The 630MTG cross-compilation system is available under separate license and is needed to compile 630 downloadable interactive processes. Otherwise, it is easy to adapt 5620 DMD applications if you have them. I think the AT&T/Teletype folks in Skokie, IL (Dan Wolski, 630 terminal product manager, and crew) can provide additional software availability information as well as a version of the compilation package for use on 4.3BSD (developed primarily at UCSD). I can also help to some degree, although my 630 work is on the back burner for a couple more months. Is it worth the hassle? You bet!
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (01/11/89)
In article <242@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>, stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) writes: > All this discussion about the AT&T 630 terminal (the derivative > of the Blit) got me wondering exactly what it was (I know what > the Blit is/was). I called AT&T and they claim the list price > is $1,225 - I was expecting something in the $2k ballpark (or more). Sorry, AT&T has mislead you. This is the pricing for the 630: Part # Description List ---------- ------------------------- ------ 3344-630 Terminal Controller Base $1,225 33534COL19 Amber 16" Display Monitor 1,080 33537 122-key keyboard 195 33535 SSI/EIA board 300 33536 Mouse 150 ------ TOTAL $2,950 I think all the parts are needed, certainly the base, monitor and keyboard. Even our reseller cost is > $2300, so if you can get it for under $2k then go for it. Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com V-Systems, Inc. I speak for me only attmail!vsi!friedl Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl -------Nancy Reagan on Usenix in San Diego: "Just say *go*"-------
ayf@cbnews.ATT.COM (avi.y.feldblum) (01/12/89)
In article <1003@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >Sorry, AT&T has mislead you. This is the pricing for the 630: > > Part # Description List >---------- ------------------------- ------ >3344-630 Terminal Controller Base $1,225 >33534COL19 Amber 16" Display Monitor 1,080 >33537 122-key keyboard 195 >33535 SSI/EIA board 300 >33536 Mouse 150 > ------ > TOTAL $2,950 > >I think all the parts are needed, certainly the base, monitor >and keyboard. The SSI/EIA board is not required, I think you would want that if you want to hook up to two different hosts AND attach a printer to the terminal. Without the board you can have one host on the main port and either a printer or second host on the aux. port. I also think that you want the 98-key keyboard (#33401) rather than the 122 key if you are using it in a Unix type of environment. The 122 has lots of "funny" (at least to me) keys on it that have meaning in an IBM (I think) environment. A second option you may want to consider is part# 33422 which is a 512k RAM card (not required, but lets you cache more stuff in the terminal). <standard disclaimer> This is not an official opinion, etc. I just happen to have a 630, and think it's a great terminal. Avi Feldblum ayf@pruxe.att.com
rja@edison.GE.COM (rja) (01/12/89)
In article <1003@vsi.COM>, friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > Sorry, AT&T has mislead you. This is the pricing for the 630: > > Part # Description List > ---------- ------------------------- ------ > 3344-630 Terminal Controller Base $1,225 > 33534COL19 Amber 16" Display Monitor 1,080 > 33537 122-key keyboard 195 > 33535 SSI/EIA board 300 > 33536 Mouse 150 > ------ > TOTAL $2,950 > > I think all the parts are needed, certainly the base, monitor > and keyboard. Even our reseller cost is > $2300, so if you can > get it for under $2k then go for it. The AT&T terminals catalog in front of me does not refer to the SSI/EIA board and specifically indicates that 2 RS-232-C ports are included with the #3344-630 controller. The 122-key keyboard is shown as retailing at $150 now. All told it still looks like around $2500 retail from AT&T. An alternative would be the 620 MTG which is rather cheaper and has many of the same features and capabilities as the 630 MTG: #3344-620 Model 620 MTG Controller $ 800 #33401 98 Key keyboard $ 140 #33450 Mouse $ 165 #33411 14" Monitor (Green/Amber) $ 355 ======================================== TOTAL $1460 The 620 is specifically mentioned as needing either the 5620 DMD software or xt software on the host system to support multiple sessions. ______________________________________________________________________________ rja@edison.GE.COM or ...uunet!virginia!edison!rja via Internet (preferable) via uucp (if you must) ______________________________________________________________________________ These aren't necessarily my employer's opinions. Much of the above are probably trademarks of AT&T
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (01/12/89)
In article <1003@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >Sorry, AT&T has mislead you. This is the pricing for the 630: > Part # Description List >---------- ------------------------- ------ >3344-630 Terminal Controller Base $1,225 >33534COL19 Amber 16" Display Monitor 1,080 >33537 122-key keyboard 195 >33535 SSI/EIA board 300 >33536 Mouse 150 >I think all the parts are needed, certainly the base, monitor >and keyboard. Even our reseller cost is > $2300, so if you can >get it for under $2k then go for it. I don't know how accurate these prices are; they may well have come down. There are also quantity and, I think, GSA discounts.. The last time I ordered 630s (in August 1988) our costs for small quanities were: Part Name: Comcode: Part Number: $Cost: 1) Controller (640Kb) 501 001 671 553 750 AAA 920.00 2) Monitor 501 001 697 53D 610 YAA 815.00 3) 98-Key Keyboard 501 004 865 56K 420 ADA V2 108.00 4) Mouse, 3-button,red 524 594 157 459 415 115.00 The mouse is essential, as you cannot operate the SET-UP menu without it. The SSI/EIA board is not necessary unless you need more than the two built-in serial ports. Also, I highly DISrecommend the 122-key keyboard, which appears to be patterned after the utterly horrible IBM PC keyboard. The 98-key model is much better (you can't use the extra function keys on the 122-key model anyway). We had some 122-key keyboards by accident and had to exchange them, they were so yucky. I tried a 5620 keyboard, which would have been just about perfect, but it unfortunately doesn't work with the 630. Why do they make keyboards so wide? I need room on my desk for things other than the @#&*^% keyboard, for example the mouse and my coffee cup! The rightmost 6 inches of the 98-key keyboard could be removed and the BREAK key moved onto the remaining keyboard, so far as I am concerned. The arrow keys are pretty much useless in a mouse-oriented world, and the numerical keypad is of interest to data entry clerks but not much else. The extra 6 function keys are a waste of space; they're not programmable like the main set of 8 function keys.
reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) (01/12/89)
In article <9348@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >Why do they make keyboards so wide? To annoy us? >I need room on my desk for things other than the @#&*^% keyboard, >for example the mouse and my coffee cup! ^^^^^^^^^^ Glad to see you have your priorities straight, Doug :-) Not only that, when you want to put the damn thing on your lap, you must get chair without arms or else it will not fit!!!! BTW: Anyone remember the original Teletype CRTs? You know the ones with the detachable keyboars which weighed a ton? They were quite useful for doing curls, but put one on your lap and you would cut off the circulation to the legs! -- George W. Leach Paradyne Corporation ..!uunet!pdn!reggie Mail stop LG-129 Phone: (813) 530-2376 P.O. Box 2826 Largo, FL USA 34649-2826
friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) (01/13/89)
In article <1003@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: [ pricing for the 630 pieces deleted ] In article <9348@smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) writes: > I don't know how accurate these prices are; they may well have > come down. These prices are accurate as of December 1988. As mentioned, they are *list* prices. Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com V-Systems, Inc. I speak for me only attmail!vsi!friedl Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl ---------Nancy Reagan on Hawaiian musicians: "Just say Ho"--------
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (01/13/89)
In article <5334@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: >In article <9348@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: > >>Why do they make keyboards so wide? > > To annoy us? > >>I need room on my desk for things other than the @#&*^% keyboard, >>for example the mouse and my coffee cup! > ^^^^^^^^^^ > Glad to see you have your priorities straight, Doug :-) >... Well, clearly the 630 keyboard (both models), as well as the IBM "advanced" AT-keyboard and the many clones are designed for left-handed people only. You can have the mouse very close to your left hand, and that should be very convenient. (I think one wants to access the mouse more often than the coffeecup.) For right-handed people like me the numeric keypad and the cursor keypad have only one effect: they put the mouse farther away from the usable part of the keyboard. I am still waiting for someone to interface the nice gnot-keyboard to the 630... Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
dmt@ptsfa.PacBell.COM (Dave Turner) (01/14/89)
In article <5334@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: > >BTW: Anyone remember the original Teletype CRTs? You know the ones >with the detachable keyboars which weighed a ton? They were quite >useful for doing curls, but put one on your lap and you would cut off >the circulation to the legs! > Detachable keyboard? The earliest Teletype CRTs that I saw were in 1969-1970. I think they called it the 2510. It was the size of a small desk. It came in two models: one had the crt with 25 (yes 25) lines by 80 columns; the other had the crt screen taller than it was wide. There was space for a built-in modem and the keyboard was similar to a model 37 keyboard. The most memorable feature was that the crt could be tilted to eliminate glare from overhead lights. To change the tilt required that the entire desk top be opened and the tilt adjusted by use of a wrench. Unfortuntately after the crt tilt had been changed the top would not close because it had been molded for one angle of tilt only. -- Dave Turner 415/542-1299 {att,bellcore,sun,ames,pyramid}!pacbell!dmt
ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) (01/15/89)
In article <9348@smoke.BRL.MIL> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <1003@vsi.COM> friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >>Sorry, AT&T has mislead you. This is the pricing for the 630: > Part Name: Comcode: Part Number: $Cost: >1) Controller (640Kb) 501 001 671 553 750 AAA 920.00 >2) Monitor 501 001 697 53D 610 YAA 815.00 >3) 98-Key Keyboard 501 004 865 56K 420 ADA V2 108.00 >4) Mouse, 3-button,red 524 594 157 459 415 115.00 I find this price to be a bit above that of the common PC clone. So why hasn't somebody written a a terminal emulator for such a machine which operates somewhat like the BLIT? Even a PC should at least be able to display multiple windows without crawling too badly, and if you put a fancier video adapter (such as EGA or VGA) on the machine, you can have more than 25 lines (this, of course, does bring the price of the PC closer to that of the Real Thing). Maybe it would be better if some relatively terminal-independent "windowed terminal protocol" would be defined (I don't know how much of this already exists with the Blit, and how much of it AT&T will give away). There are obviously are places where machine independence is impossible, such as when the user interface part of an editor is downloaded into the terminal, but this could certainly be accomodated in the protocol. I have seen a program called "uw" which runs on a Macintosh and provides multiple-window access. It's pretty Macintosh-specific but I still thought it as interesting. When your host computer goes down, you can still play games on the PC (or some other marginally productive activity) The coffee cup holder would, of course, be an "optional feature" :-) Glen Overby ncoverby@plains.nodak.edu uunet!ndsuvax!ncoverby ncoverby@ndsuvax (Bitnet)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/17/89)
'uw' is available for the Amiga and Atari ST, as well as the Mac. The problem is the host-side seems to be BSD specific. Has anyone got 'uw' running under System V (I presume Xenix III is out of the question)? -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Work: uunet.uu.net!ficc!peter, peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. `-_-' Home: bigtex!texbell!sugar!peter, peter@sugar.uu.net. 'U` Opinions may not represent the policies of FICC or the Xenix Support group.
mark@uunet.uu.net (Mark Valentine) (01/17/89)
Doug Gwyn writes: >Why do they make keyboards so wide? ...and deep... >I need room on my desk for things other than the @#&*^% keyboard, >for example the mouse and my coffee cup! Paul De Bra writes: > For right-handed people like me the numeric keypad and the cursor > keypad have only one effect: they put the mouse farther away from the usable > part of the keyboard. Hear hear. If the folks at Wyse are listening(?), how's about an LK201-compatible Wyse-30 lookalike keyboard for us *little* people. Then I can even get my *tea-mug* between the keyboard and display so it doesn't have to fight with my mouse for space! Why do I have to downgrade my keyboard when I upgrade my display?? Mark. __ Mark Valentine, Spider Systems Limited, Edinburgh, UK. /\oo/\ <mark@spider.co.uk, mark%spider.co.uk@uunet.uu.net, uunet!mcvax!ukc!spider!mark>
bzs@Encore.COM (Barry Shein) (01/18/89)
Mark Valentine opines... >Doug Gwyn writes: >>Why do they make keyboards so wide? >...and deep... Popping the stack again a number of the X terminal makers seem to be using PS/2 compatible interface specs and at least one I've spoken to is happy to sell their terminal without a keyboard so you can go find your own. So that sort of reduces the problem to finding a PS/2 compatible keyboard that fits your needs. Unfortunately people seem so divided on what a keyboard should be like that they'll never find what they really want (er, I need a Dvorak, curved, chord keyboard...in yellow!), but perhaps they can find what they need. -Barry Shein, ||Encore||
root@spdyne.UUCP (01/18/89)
> In article <1003@vsi.COM>, friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: > > Sorry, AT&T has mislead you. This is the pricing for the 630: > > > > Part # Description List > > ---------- ------------------------- ------ > > 3344-630 Terminal Controller Base $1,225 > > 33534COL19 Amber 16" Display Monitor 1,080 > > 33537 122-key keyboard 195 > > 33535 SSI/EIA board 300 > > 33536 Mouse 150 > > ------ > > TOTAL $2,950 > > > > I think all the parts are needed, certainly the base, monitor > > and keyboard. Even our reseller cost is > $2300, so if you can > > get it for under $2k then go for it. And just think, We are paying about $2,400 for an AST 286/10 With 1 Meg of Ram, EGA, 1 Serial & 1 Par. W/ Multi-Sync monitor... They make fine terminals.... I see no reason to "go for it" at all.. For 500 bucks more I can get a Amber monitor? (Yes, I KNOW that this is ONLY a terminal and I am talking about getting a real computer for use as a 'smart terminal', but then, why not? Unless you are doing I/O at 19,200 And doing large block transfers (Graphic pages using >20K or so per page), I see little reason to buy terminals at all anymore... On the other hand, I haven't ever seen on of these terminals, so who knows it might even outperform a programable computer... :-) -Chert Pellett root@spdyne
heff@flnexus.ATT.COM (Paul_Heffner) (01/18/89)
From article <1762@edison.GE.COM>, by rja@edison.GE.COM (rja): > > The AT&T terminals catalog in front of me does not refer to the > SSI/EIA board and specifically indicates that 2 RS-232-C ports > are included with the #3344-630 controller... The second serial port on the base controller for the 630 is for a printer port, you cannot use it for a second host access. The SSI/EIA board is needed for this purpose. (The SSI port lets you hook it to a 6500 family controller for access to the Synchronous/IBM world.) > An alternative would be the 620 MTG which is rather cheaper and > has many of the same features and capabilities as the 630 MTG: Yeah, I guess you could say that (I'm in layers on a 620 right now), but the 630 is much better than the 620 in practically all respects. Being limited to only one host is a real beat and this little turkey won't come up in layers across our data switch (an equinox DSS) so I have to use it directly connected to the host. (The 630 does just fine through the switch and I've used it in layers through ISN, Datakit, and 2400 bps dialup) The 4014 graphics terminal mode is pretty nice but the 3b2 graphics software doesn't seem to like it too well. The 630 is a true workstation with a development system available to allow you to run software directly on the multi-tasking resident OS, while the 620 is a merely another ANSI terminal which has a graphics mode and does a really good job on windowing to "layers". It also has some strange ideosyncrasies absent from the 630 (as an example, when you fire up layers it paints the screen with textured video and doesn't give you an initial window. You then need to use the mouse to get to an initial window and do your work. On the 630, it leaves your current window as the first xt window and indicates the use of layers with the tiny "overlapping boxes" icon in the border of the window.) > The 620 is specifically mentioned as needing either the 5620 DMD > software or xt software on the host system to support multiple sessions. The layers support software is supplied with all releases of System V release 3.x that I've seen. The 5620 DMD software doesn't give you anything of use on the 620. Heff
fangli@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Chang) (01/19/89)
In article <1800005@spdyne> root@spdyne.UUCP writes: > > And just think, We are paying about $2,400 for an AST 286/10 With >1 Meg of Ram, EGA, 1 Serial & 1 Par. W/ Multi-Sync monitor... They make >fine terminals.... I see no reason to "go for it" at all.. For 500 bucks >more I can get a Amber monitor? (Yes, I KNOW that this is ONLY a terminal >and I am talking about getting a real computer for use as a 'smart terminal', >but then, why not? Unless you are doing I/O at 19,200 And doing large block >transfers (Graphic pages using >20K or so per page), I see little reason >to buy terminals at all anymore... > It is probably because you see too little ... B-) Use a PC or a terminal all depend on what kind of work environment you are in. For those who do large scale development and integration PC is just as good as a 'dump terminal', of course, compare to what 630 can do. Not long ago, I spend a lot of time monitoring program running at one host and also at the same time editing several patches I added into the environment that the program is running, and reference my sources and headers at the second host to create the right patches. I do not know any PC can provide me the capability of multiple window on multiple host at the same time. > > -Chert Pellett > root@spdyne Fangli Chang (I can live with a PC, but the life at work will be much harder)
gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly) (01/19/89)
From article <1800005@spdyne>, by root@spdyne.UUCP: > >> In article <1003@vsi.COM>, friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl) writes: >> > ... if you can >> > get it for under $2k then go for it. > > And just think, We are paying about $2,400 for an AST 286/10 With > 1 Meg of Ram, EGA, 1 Serial & 1 Par. W/ Multi-Sync monitor... They make > fine terminals.... I see no reason to "go for it" at all.. For 500 bucks > more I can get a Amber monitor? (Yes, I KNOW that this is ONLY a terminal > and I am talking about getting a real computer for use as a 'smart terminal', > but then, why not? Unless you are doing I/O at 19,200 And doing large block > transfers (Graphic pages using >20K or so per page), I see little reason > to buy terminals at all anymore... > > On the other hand, I haven't ever seen on of these terminals, so > who knows it might even outperform a programable computer... :-) The point of the 630 is that the software base is already there, that is if you have either an AT&T 3B computer or you or your vendor has licensed the source for the driver. I use a 615 which pages 3 different layers in a 24x80 screen. Mine has no memory for applications, but the manuals hint that there is some other capabilities. The 620 is supposedly closer to the 630, but I do not have any experience with one. I use 3 24x80 layers which allows me to have a news window, a work window, and a mail window into the unix machine that I use. There are many benefits to this in terms of work convienience and user community conviences. In terms of the user community, they are not paying the continual price of me starting subprocesses to do thing from other applications as I get new mail or are otherwise distracted. On small machines, this can be a real benefit. If your machine only swaps, and doesn't page, then there will be some swapping overhead that will happen when I switch to a different layer and start typing at it (providing it has been setting there idle, thus causing it to be swapped). There are many-MANY things nice about the 630 environment compared to the 615. For one, the larger screen allows you to have 2 completely visible 24x80 windows. With memory expansion and the second hardware port, the 630 can give you 14 windows, 7 per host. Some say that is more than you would ever use, but I have used a 630 on occasion, and have used all 7 windows on one host and had 3 on another. To do what I needed to do would have required me to find 10 different terminals because I needed to have keyboard interaction with 10 different processes. Shell Layers would not have worked because the 10 processes all have common output that would have became intermingled and indistinguishable. As for PC's... As long as people continue to buy those damn Intel Processors, we will never see real processing power at reasonable prices. The manufacturers need to sell enough of their products (I am purposely not mentioning another manufacturer) to pay for tooling before they are going to reduce their prices. Besides, if you think that your AST/286 is so good, run the following C program, if you get the output 1 70000 Your C compiler wins my award for effort otherwise you won't get any words of sympathy from me... main () { unsigned long i; char *s, *malloc(); s = malloc ((unsigned)70000); for (i=0; i < ((unsigned)70000); i++) s[i] = i; printf ("%d\n%d\n", s[1], s[(unsigned)70000]); } -- Gregg Wonderly DOMAIN: gregg@ihlpb.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories UUCP: att!ihlpb!gregg
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (01/19/89)
In article <9434@ihlpb.ATT.COM> gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly) writes: }... }There are many-MANY things nice about the 630 environment... } }As for PC's... } }.. if you think that your AST/286 is so good, run the following }C program, if you get the output } }1 }70000 } }Your C compiler wins my award for effort otherwise you won't get any }words of sympathy from me... } } [program using unsigned ints and malloc deleted] You seem a bit confused. The 630 is a nice terminal for creating a few windows and such, but according to your standards its programmability is lousy, because it won't run your little program. It uses 16 bit ints and malloc (actualla called alloc) can only allocate 64k, using an unsigned. The 630 has its problems, but I don't think your test is adequate for determining whether any machine is worth getting your sympathy. Even on a machine with 16 bit ints you can run nice programs. Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn ) (01/19/89)
In article <163@flnexus.ATT.COM> heff@flnexus.ATT.COM (Paul_Heffner) writes: >The second serial port on the base controller for the 630 is for >a printer port, you cannot use it for a second host access. Not true; it can be configured via the SETUP menus either way (or left unused). >Being limited to only one host is a real beat and this little turkey >won't come up in layers across our data switch (an equinox DSS) so I >have to use it directly connected to the host. Isn't there an "encoding" option you can turn on? The problem is that many terminal switches are not designed to transparently pass, unmolested, all 8 data bits, which are needed in unencoded layers mode. Encoded mode uses just those bit patterns that are likely to make it through such switches. The nicest way to access multiple hosts is via transparent network access (rlogin or equivalent) in a separate window. The fact that data is being routed through the host first connected to is not usually a problem. >The layers support software is supplied with all releases of System V >release 3.x that I've seen. The 5620 DMD software doesn't give you >anything of use on the 620. It does if you don't already HAVE ("xt" protocol) layers support on your host.
gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly) (01/20/89)
From article <9434@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, by gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly): > 1 > 70000 Pardon my stupid blunder, the 70000 should obviously be 69999. Sometimes I just lose it when people start bragging about brain damaged hardware... Sigh.... -- Gregg Wonderly DOMAIN: gregg@ihlpb.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories UUCP: att!ihlpb!gregg
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (01/20/89)
In article <163@flnexus.ATT.COM> heff@flnexus.ATT.COM (Paul_Heffner) writes: }From article <1762@edison.GE.COM>, by rja@edison.GE.COM (rja): }> }> The AT&T terminals catalog in front of me does not refer to the }> SSI/EIA board and specifically indicates that 2 RS-232-C ports }> are included with the #3344-630 controller... } }The second serial port on the base controller for the 630 is for }a printer port, you cannot use it for a second host access. The }SSI/EIA board is needed for this purpose. Not true!!! The setup-menu lets you select the purpose of the second serial port, and you can connect both ports to hosts without the SSI/EIA board. I am actually using this (and I don't have the SSI/EIA board). This board is intended for people who want to connect to 2 hosts and still hook up a printer too. So most people DON'T need this board at all. (You DO want the black and white monitor though, instead of the default amber. Price is the same. But it looks much nicer.) Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
alexb@cfctech.UUCP (Alex Beylin) (01/20/89)
In article <163@flnexus.ATT.COM> heff@flnexus.ATT.COM (Paul_Heffner) writes: >The second serial port on the base controller for the 630 is for >a printer port, you cannot use it for a second host access. The >SSI/EIA board is needed for this purpose. (The SSI port lets you >hook it to a 6500 family controller for access to the Synchronous/IBM >world.) My SSI card is still on order, but I am using the two serial ports to connect to two hosts. The trick is to use a null-modem cable for the second serial port - works fine. Alex Beylin, Unix Systems Admin. | +1 313 244 3386 alexb@cfctech.UUCP | Chrysler Financial Corp. alexb%cfctech.uucp@mailgw.cc.umich.edu | MIS, Technical Services {sharkey|mailrus}!cfctech!alexb | 901 Wilshire, Troy, MI ----------------------------------------------------------------- "It feels like Death, but... it doesn't stop." -----------------------------------------------------------------
ellard@bbn.com (Dan Ellard) (01/20/89)
From article <9434@ihlpb.ATT.COM, by gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM: > Besides, if you think that your AST/286 is so good, run the following > C program, if you get the output > > 1 > 70000 > > Your C compiler wins my award for effort otherwise you won't get any > words of sympathy from me... > > main () > { > unsigned long i; > char *s, *malloc(); > > s = malloc ((unsigned)70000); > > for (i=0; i < ((unsigned)70000); i++) > s[i] = i; > > printf ("%d\n%d\n", s[1], s[(unsigned)70000]); > } I have a funny feeling this program probably won't generate that output on any machine. The main loop stops at 70000 - 1, and since you only malloc 70000 chars, s [70000] might not be a valid address anyway.... But seriously, I don't think there is any question about whether or not an increase in the number of windows or an increase in the number of lines in each window significantly increases PROGRAMMER productivity-- it does. I find having a bit-mapped screen also reduces the amount of time I have to spend doing document preparation-- I can preview troff or TeX output at my desk, instead of having to hike to the printer room and back, it's a big win. (programmers spend a lot of time writing documentation, right? :-|) I think Stephen Friedl's estimate of $100k a year to support a programmer may even be a bit low, which means it doesn't take many percentage points of increased productivity to justify a workstation on each programmer's desk. On the other hand, it just doesn't make sense to put a workstation (or the same kind of workstation, for that matter) on everyone's desk. Some tasks, such as data entry or reading email, don't currently benefit from using anything better than a dumb terminal, and perhaps they never will. Dumb terminals are here to stay. So are PC's and workstations. Each has its own niche, where it is the most efficient thing to use. -Dan Dan Ellard -- ellard@vax.bbn.com
muller@sdcc7.ucsd.EDU (Keith Muller) (01/20/89)
In article <163@flnexus.ATT.COM>, heff@flnexus.ATT.COM (Paul_Heffner) writes: > The second serial port on the base controller for the 630 is for > a printer port, you cannot use it for a second host access. The > SSI/EIA board is needed for this purpose. (The SSI port lets you > hook it to a 6500 family controller for access to the Synchronous/IBM > world.) This is completely wrong. I am using the second port at this moment for a second set of windows. The 630 base controller WITHOUT an optional boards will support two different layers connections. Keith Muller University of California
avr@mtgzy.att.com (a.v.reed) (01/20/89)
In article <163@flnexus.ATT.COM>, heff@flnexus.ATT.COM (Paul_Heffner) writes:
< From article <1762@edison.GE.COM>, by rja@edison.GE.COM (rja):
< >
< > The AT&T terminals catalog in front of me does not refer to the
< > SSI/EIA board and specifically indicates that 2 RS-232-C ports
< > are included with the #3344-630 controller...
<
< The second serial port on the base controller for the 630 is for
< a printer port, you cannot use it for a second host access. The
< SSI/EIA board is needed for this purpose.
Not true - right now, I'm using a 630 with two hosts and NO SSI/EIA
board. All you need to do is insert a null modem between the second host
and the "printer" port, and then use "setup" in the "more" submenu to
configure that port for a second host. Try it.
Adam Reed (avr@mtgzy.ATT.COM)dlm@cuuxb.ATT.COM (Dennis L. Mumaugh) (01/20/89)
In article <163@flnexus.ATT.COM> heff@flnexus.ATT.COM (Paul_Heffner) writes: >The second serial port on the base controller for the 630 is for >a printer port, you cannot use it for a second host access. The >SSI/EIA board is needed for this purpose. (The SSI port lets you >hook it to a 6500 family controller for access to the Synchronous/IBM >world.) Odd, my 630 interfaced to two different hosts without the extra board. >Yeah, I guess you could say that (I'm in layers on a 620 right now), >but the 630 is much better than the 620 in practically all respects. >Being limited to only one host is a real beat and this little turkey >won't come up in layers across our data switch (an equinox DSS) so I >have to use it directly connected to the host. Funny, my 620 setup menu does have an encoding option. It seems to work okay. >The 4014 graphics terminal mode is pretty nice but the 3b2 graphics >software doesn't seem to like it too well. Odd, I compiled a fractal program with the 4014 graphics library, and it worked. It IS true recent versions of System V Reease 2 & 3 have removed the graphics software and libraies. >While the 620 is a merely another ANSI >terminal which has a graphics mode and does a really good job on windowing >to "layers". It also has some strange ideosyncrasies absent from the >630 (as an example, when you fire up layers it paints the screen with >textured video and doesn't give you an initial window. You then need to >use the mouse to get to an initial window and do your work. I found that you could have windows created automagically with the layers -f option. RTFM. > On the 630, it leaves your current window as the first xt window and indicates the >use of layers with the tiny "overlapping boxes" icon in the border of the >window.) True. Menus and such are much better. Also the default window software has scroll bars, cut and paste and inter-window features that are similar to Open Look -- guess which came first. >The layers support software is supplied with all releases of System V >release 3.x that I've seen. The 5620 DMD software doesn't give you >anything of use on the 620. Not directly, but the icon files are similar and some of the source can be ported -- the difference is a 32 bit WE32100 and a 16 bit MC68000. -- =Dennis L. Mumaugh Lisle, IL ...!{att,lll-crg}!cuuxb!dlm OR cuuxb!dlm@arpa.att.com
wjc@ho5cad.ATT.COM (Bill Carpenter) (01/20/89)
In article <163@flnexus.ATT.COM> heff@flnexus.ATT.COM (Paul_Heffner) writes: > The second serial port on the base controller for the 630 is for > a printer port, you cannot use it for a second host access. The > SSI/EIA board is needed for this purpose. Sorry, but this is not correct. A lot of people have been faked out by that second port. If you stick a null modem on it, it works just fine for a host connection. Of course, if you want to be able to go to two hosts *and* have a printer, then you need the SSI/EIA card. -- -- Bill Carpenter att!ho5cad!wjc or attmail!bill
gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly) (01/20/89)
From article <8794@alice.UUCP>, by debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra): > } > }1 > }70000 69999 sigh... > } > }Your C compiler wins my award for effort otherwise you won't get any > }words of sympathy from me... > } > } [program using unsigned ints and malloc deleted] > > You seem a bit confused. The 630 is a nice terminal for creating a few > windows and such, but according to your standards its programmability > is lousy, because it won't run your little program. It uses 16 bit ints > and malloc (actualla called alloc) can only allocate 64k, using an > unsigned. Yes, that is true. I guess I should just say the whole thing next time. Programs such as the one I showed could be transformed to the following on the 630 and they wouldn't refuse to compile with such error messages as "foo.c", line 1: 'a', allocation greater than 64k or "foo.c", line 12: common area greater than 64k long a[70000]; main () { long *p = a, i; for (i=0;i < 70000; ++i) *p++ = i; printf ("%ld\n%ld\n", a[0], a[69999]); } It is not the size of an int that bothers me, it is the stupid segmentation of the address space. One would think that after people got tired of writing fragments like the following on the 808x # Convert a linear address to a segment reg/offset reg pair. # Sorta Intel assembler... # Input DS/BX as a long # Output DS:BX as segment offset mov ax,ds mov cl,12 sla mov ds,ax when Intel designed the 286 protected mode, they would have thought to put the gosh darn LDT/GDT indicator and access level bits else where and make the segment selector work as a LDT/GDT selector without needing to be shifted and masked and otherwise abused. I like the idea of segments because they provide a very logical way to get rid of objects that a process is not needing. I.e. either you need the function or you don't. Same thing for arrays and other data objects. Enough said... -- Gregg Wonderly DOMAIN: gregg@ihlpb.att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories UUCP: att!ihlpb!gregg
andrew@alice.UUCP (Andrew Hume) (01/20/89)
actually i think the black and bluish white screen sucks. but luckily unix supports both kinds so each to his or her own.
john@frog.UUCP (John Woods) (01/20/89)
In article <9434@ihlpb.ATT.COM>, gregg@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Wonderly) writes: A> Besides, if you think that your AST/286 is so good, run the following r> C program, if you get the output e> 1 > 70000 y> Your C compiler wins my award for effort otherwise you won't get any o> words of sympathy from me... u> main () > { s> unsigned long i; u> char *s, *malloc(); r> s = malloc ((unsigned)70000); e> for (i=0; i < ((unsigned)70000); i++) ?> s[i] = i; > printf ("%d\n%d\n", s[1], s[(unsigned)70000]); > } Uh............. A C compiler which can figure out from the printf usage that you actually meant to (a) declare s as long *, and (b) malloc and initialize 70,001 longwords instead of 70,000 bytes is probably going to win more than awards... I think you forgot the #pragma Do What I Mean line. -- John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (508) 626-1101 ...!decvax!frog!john, john@frog.UUCP, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu Presumably this means that it is vital to get the wrong answers quickly. Kernighan and Plauger, The Elements of Programming Style
stox@ttrde.UUCP (Kenneth P. Stox) (01/21/89)
**FLAME ON** In article <8794@alice.UUCP>, debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) writes: > You seem a bit confused. The 630 is a nice terminal for creating a few > windows and such, but according to your standards its programmability > is lousy, because it won't run your little program. It uses 16 bit ints > and malloc (actualla called alloc) can only allocate 64k, using an > unsigned. We have provided a funtion lalloc() to accept an unsigned long for just such occurrences. The syntax is as follows: char *lalloc( lnbytes ) unsigned long lnbytes; free() is still applicable to this function. 16 bit ints were chosen for performance in this implementation, since most operations performed in the 630 MTG do not need the overhead and precision of 32 bit integers. **FLAME OFF** ========================================================================= Ken Stox 630 Development Group att!ttrde!stox AT&T Bell Labs, Skokie, Illinois
rwa@auvax.uucp (Ross Alexander) (01/22/89)
In article <8744@alice.UUCP>, debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) writes: } In article <5334@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes: [....] } Well, clearly the 630 keyboard (both models), as well as the IBM "advanced" } AT-keyboard and the many clones are designed for left-handed people only. } You can have the mouse very close to your left hand, and that should be } very convenient. (I think one wants to access the mouse more often than the } coffeecup.) For right-handed people like me the numeric keypad and the cursor } keypad have only one effect: they put the mouse farther away from the usable } part of the keyboard. I am left handed. I am _very_, _very_ left handed, always have been, & no apologies to anyone about it B-). But, I always put the mouse on the right and use it dextrally. Why? Because it demands only fairly gross motor skills (pointing, and two to three buttons). Whereas the left hand, on any keyboard worthy of the name, is the hand that needs good co-ordination. I mean <CONTROL>, <SHIFT>, <TAB>, and <META> live on the left side almost exclusively, right? And any emacs-hack knows that those are the most important keys on the keyboard, n'est ce' pas ?? Is Richard Stallman left-handed :-) :-) ?? And so, on my 630, my VaxStation, my Sun, and my Atari-ST it's "mouse on the right, left hand does the _clever_ stuff", such as META-SHIFT-< or whatever. And of course, my coffee cups live on the left side too (to avoid swatting them with the mouse, since I never look at the mouse when I'm using it...) Ross
allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (01/24/89)
As quoted from <2754@ficc.uu.net> by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): +--------------- | 'uw' is available for the Amiga and Atari ST, as well as the Mac. The problem | is the host-side seems to be BSD specific. Has anyone got 'uw' running under | System V (I presume Xenix III is out of the question)? +--------------- "uw" requires (a) pty's, (b) polling (select() or poll()) and (c) it uses F_SETOWN, which makes me wonder if you need SIGIO as well (I haven't looked at the source too closely yet, F_SETOWN is mentioned in the release notes). The former two are possible with STREAMS (some implementations, at least); the latter, in some cases, could be a REAL b*tch (reliable signals, please!). If it turns out to be possible, I've the uw 4.2 server sources available and will post diffs relative to them for a STREAMS implementation. [I have to wait for the vendor to get the /dev/pty clone device or the underlying driver working before I can do anything, though.] ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US (John F. Haugh II) (01/24/89)
In article <465@aurora.AthabascaU.CA> rwa@auvax.uucp (Ross Alexander) writes: >I am left handed. I am _very_, _very_ left handed, always have been, >& no apologies to anyone about it B-). But, I always put the mouse on >the right and use it dextrally. Why? Because if you put it on the left, you'd be using it sinisterly ;-) Sorry. I just had to. I am also a militant left-hander ... -- John F. Haugh II +-Ad of the Week:---------------------- VoiceNet: (214) 250-3311 Data: -6272 |"Your hole is our goal" InterNet: jfh@rpp386.Dallas.TX.US | -- Gearhart Wireline Services UucpNet : <backbone>!killer!rpp386!jfh +------ Shrevesport, LA -------------
hutch@lzaz.ATT.COM (R.HUTCHISON) (02/08/89)
From article <1003@vsi.COM>, by friedl@vsi.COM (Stephen J. Friedl):
] In article <242@hsi86.hsi.UUCP>, stevens@hsi.UUCP (Richard Stevens) writes:
]> All this discussion about the AT&T 630 terminal (the derivative
]> of the Blit) got me wondering exactly what it was (I know what
]> the Blit is/was). I called AT&T and they claim the list price
]> is $1,225 - I was expecting something in the $2k ballpark (or more).
]
] Sorry, AT&T has mislead you. This is the pricing for the 630:
]
] Part # Description List
] ---------- ------------------------- ------
] 3344-630 Terminal Controller Base $1,225
] 33534COL19 Amber 16" Display Monitor 1,080
] 33537 122-key keyboard 195
] 33535 SSI/EIA board 300
] 33536 Mouse 150
] ------
] TOTAL $2,950
]
] I think all the parts are needed, certainly the base, monitor
] and keyboard. Even our reseller cost is > $2300, so if you can
] get it for under $2k then go for it.
]
] Steve
]
] --
] Stephen J. Friedl 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com
] V-Systems, Inc. I speak for me only attmail!vsi!friedl
] Santa Ana, CA USA +1 714 545 6442 {backbones}!vsi!friedl
] -------Nancy Reagan on Usenix in San Diego: "Just say *go*"-------
Three suggestions:
1) Don't order the 122-key keyboard unless you are used to synchronous
terminals and aren't going to use it for UNIX\f(rg System access. Get
the 98 character keyboard.
2) Don't order the SSI/EIA card unless you need access to two
terminals PLUS a printer. You can use the second serial port (with a
null modem?) for access to a second host.
3) If you can afford it, order the extra memory especially if you are
going to download anything substantial.
NOTE: you can also a black and white (light blue?) screen instead of
the amber screen. I also like the red mouse over the logitech (flat)
mouse.
Bob Hutchison
att!lzaz!hutchrbj@nav.icst.nbs.gov (Nilbert T Bignum) (02/21/89)
? From: Ross Alexander <rwa@auvax.uucp> ? I am left handed. I am _very_, _very_ left handed, always have been, ? & no apologies to anyone about it B-). But, I always put the mouse on ? the right and use it dextrally. Why? Because it demands only fairly ? gross motor skills (pointing, and two to three buttons). Whereas the ? left hand, on any keyboard worthy of the name, is the hand that needs ? good co-ordination. And I am _very_, _very_ right handed. And we `normal' people are much more inflexible about handedness than you sinister people are. Some activitys don't even have a left-handed paradigm. For example, I bet you play the piano right-handed :-) I think what is at issue here is to what does `handedness' apply? Read on. ? I mean <CONTROL>, <SHIFT>, <TAB>, and <META> live on the left side ? almost exclusively, right? And any emacs-hack knows that those are ? the most important keys on the keyboard, n'est ce' pas ?? Is Richard ? Stallman left-handed :-) :-) ?? I thought the most important key was the coke-bottle :-) ? And so, on my 630, my VaxStation, my Sun, and my Atari-ST it's "mouse on ? the right, left hand does the _clever_ stuff", such as META-SHIFT-< or ? whatever. And of course, my coffee cups live on the left side too (to ? avoid swatting them with the mouse, since I never look at the mouse ? when I'm using it...) Me neither, I'm a touch-mousist (:-), even tho I have a random typing style. What I quibble with is your notion of that the clever hand must do the clever stuff. Consider playing guitar. Until you get to finger-picking, the opposite hand does the clever stuff. Strumming is pretty dumb. When I type, I use the left shift key always. I submit that either you have actually adapted to a right-handed paradigm, or that handedness isn't really much of a factor as far as terminal layout goes. ? Ross Nilbert T Bignum <rbj@nav.icst.nbs.gov> NTSI: Never Twice the Same Institute
rabe@agnes.uucp (brett m rabe) (02/21/89)
In article <18414@adm.BRL.MIL> rbj@nav.icst.nbs.gov (Nilbert T Bignum) writes: >? From: Ross Alexander <rwa@auvax.uucp> >? And so, on my 630, my VaxStation, my Sun, and my Atari-ST it's "mouse on >? the right, left hand does the _clever_ stuff", such as META-SHIFT-< or >? whatever. And of course, my coffee cups live on the left side too (to >? avoid swatting them with the mouse, since I never look at the mouse >? when I'm using it...) >? Ross Man, you guys sure know how to wake a guy up and make him think about whether or not he's normal.... So here I am, sitting at this really pretty sun workstation, just kicking back and reading the news in the morning, and i get to this posting.... so I look around. Water bottle on the left, notepad on the left, tape deck on the left, chair even turned to the left, mouse on the right. sigh. life being a lefty. sigh. brett ****************************************************************** brett m rabe *SHANTIH* rabe@stolaf.edu ******************************************************************
carey@m.cs.uiuc.edu (02/22/89)
I recently had my right hand in a cast for a couple of weeks. I discovered that about two-thirds of the keys I typed where done by the left hand. It probably results from the origins of the qwerty keyboard-- the designer wanted to slow down the typist to avoid key jams. So it seems reasonable that both left-handers and right-handers would put the mouse on the right-hand side -- because the left hand uses the keyboard more. Try typing with just the left hand. It is not as bad as you might think.
sadler@heurikon.UUCP (Jon Sadler) (02/25/89)
In article <18414@adm.BRL.MIL> rbj@nav.icst.nbs.gov (Nilbert T Bignum) writes: > From: Ross Alexander <rwa@auvax.uucp> > And so, on my 630, my VaxStation, my Sun, and my Atari-ST it's "mouse on > the right, left hand does the _clever_ stuff", such as META-SHIFT-< or > whatever. And of course, my coffee cups live on the left side too (to > avoid swatting them with the mouse, since I never look at the mouse > when I'm using it...) > Ross Personally, I prefer to get a high traction carpet protector and move my mouse with my foot, on the floor. This has elicited some different remarks, with my favorite being: "Gee, he's playing footsie with his computer again!" :^) Jonathan Sadler Heurikon Corp. -- BANG PATH: ...rutgers!uwvax!heurikon!sadler SNAIL: Jonathan Sadler ...rutgers!nucsrl!laidbak!sadler Heurikon Corp. UUCP DOMAIN: sadler@heurikon.UUCP 3201 Latham Drive sadler@laidbak.UUCP Madison, WI 53713 ARPA: sadler@csd4.milw.wisc.edu PHONE: (608) 271-8700