maner@bgsuvax.UUCP (Walter Maner) (03/09/88)
We're running the latest version of MicroEMACS on a VAX 780. With most terminals (VT100, VT52, etc.) it works as expected but, on VT102s, it periodically thinks it has received CTRL-Ss from the keyboard when it hasn't. I deduce from this that VT100s and VT102s handle control-flow handshaking differently, but I don't know enough about the specific difference to produce a fix. Any help would be much appreciated. -- CSNet : maner@research1.bgsu.edu | CS Dept 419/372-2337 UUCP : {cbatt,cbosgd}!osu-cis!bgsuvax!maner | BGSU Generic : maner%research1.bgsu.edu@relay.cs.net | Bowling Green, OH 43403 Opinion : If you are married, you deserve a MARRIAGE ENCOUNTER weekend!
moore@UTKCS2.CS.UTK.EDU (Keith Moore) (03/10/88)
VT102s are slower than VT100s, so they require more padding. VT100 termcap entries don't work well with VT102s for this reason. The result is that the VT102 sends control-s in some situations where the VT100 will keep up. The solution is to create a termcap entry for the VT102 with the correct padding. Unfortunately this isn't easy. It takes a lot of experimentation to get it right. I don't have my VT102 termcap entry anymore; else I'd include it here. Perhaps someone else on the net could supply one. Keith Moore UT Computer Science Dept. Internet/CSnet: moore@utkcs2.cs.utk.edu 107 Ayres Hall, UT Campus BITNET: moore@utkcs1 Knoxville Tennessee 37996-1301
jr@LF-SERVER-2.BBN.COM (John Robinson) (03/10/88)
>> It takes a lot of experimentation >> to get it right. People here eventually gave up (or maybe that was for the VT101?). The problem was that the VT10? design requires just as much of the processor to receive a padding character and throw it out as to get a regular printing charactrer, so no amount of padding is enough. Another choice is to give up and use flow control. /jr jr@bbn.com or jr@bbn.uucp