salzman@rdlvax.UUCP (Gumby) (12/12/86)
I'm looking for a real good VT-100 (or VT-220) compatable terminal with
some of the following features:
- Fast enough to keep up with GNU Emacs at 9600 or 19.2K baud
without ^S/^Q.
- User accessable 25'th status line.
- Programmable function keys.
- Screen memory for 2 or more screens.
I've seen some adds for some apperently nice terminals, but I don't
know how they really function (speed wise, etc.). If anyone has experience
with a Terminal they're particularly fond of, please tell me about it.
A couple terminals I've seen that I kinda like from a first glance are
1) HDS 2200, and 2) Micro-Term 420. Thanks in advance for any responses.
-- ----
* Isaac Salzman (Gumby) /o o/ /
* Research Development Labs (RDL) | v | |
* Culver City, California, 90230 _| |_/
* UUCP: ...!{psivax,csun,sdcrdcf,ttidca}!rdlvax!salzman / | |
* ARPA: rdlvax!salzman@SEISMO.CSS.GOV | | | wb8foz@ncoast.UUCP (David Lesher) (12/17/86)
> Article <83@rdlvax.UUCP> From: salzman@rdlvax.UUCP (Gumby)
# I'm looking for a real good VT-100 (or VT-220) compatable terminal with
# some of the following features:
#
# - Fast enough to keep up with GNU Emacs at 9600 or 19.2K baud
# without ^S/^Q.
I did extensive tests a couple years ago on a number of "fast"
terminals. Surprise! the ONLY one that came close to keeping
up @ 9600 was a TEK (ithink model#) 4051, a megadollar graphics
tube. Forget 19.2. All the rest were swamped when run without XON/
XOF. They just could not chew bits and spit electrons fast enough.
Granted my tests were worst case ( I was "loading" the CSMA/CD LAN
to find ITS real thruput) but my advice is unless you are using a
exotic bit-mapped mega resolution screen, ANY 9600 term is a lot
faster than you can read.
--
decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!wb8foz
ncoast!wb8foz@case.csnet
(ncoast!wb8foz%case.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA)
"SERIOUS?
Bones, it could upset the entire percentage!"
jbs@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU (Jeff Siegal) (12/18/86)
In article <1825@ncoast.UUCP> wb8foz@ncoast.UUCP (David Lesher) writes: >> Article <83@rdlvax.UUCP> From: salzman@rdlvax.UUCP (Gumby) ># I'm looking for a real good VT-100 (or VT-220) compatable terminal with ># some of the following features: ># ># - Fast enough to keep up with GNU Emacs at 9600 or 19.2K baud ># without ^S/^Q. >I did extensive tests a couple years ago on a number of "fast" >terminals. Surprise! the ONLY one that came close to keeping >up @ 9600 was a TEK (ithink model#) 4051, a megadollar graphics >tube. Forget 19.2. All the rest were swamped when run without XON/ >XOF.[...] This is simply not true. I've used many vt100 compatibles and found that with today's technology, 9600 baud simply isn't that much of a big deal. My suggestion is the Wyse 85. It is pretty cheap (about $500, I think) and it runs just fine at 19,200 baud. I never did extensive testing, but for Emacs or the like no flow control is needed. Even turning on the mode line (which you need to show shift-lock, etc.) doesn't seem to slow it down. If you're happy with 9600 baud (without flow control), just about any of the vt220 compatibles will do (including the vt220 itself, which will also keep up at 19,200 as long as you don't do much scrolling). Jeff Siegal
wb8foz@ncoast.UUCP (David Lesher) (12/21/86)
...discussion on term throughput....
# This is simply not true. I've used many vt100 compatibles and found
# that with today's technology, 9600 baud simply isn't that much of a
# big deal.
I stand by my remark. The results were not obvious. I had an
expensive Tek 834 rs-232 test set in the line. Two things
became clear as I got deeper into it. First, most data
sources (ie the PDP-11/34 I used to make test data) were
not fast enough to provide real 9600 data. I had a software
priest write me a test prgm in octal that I punched in from the
front panel to cure that. When that problem was solved, the 834
showed regular X-OFFs coming back from all the terms in ?. Granted
X-ons came soon after that, (sorry no results data here for exact #s)
Disabling the Xon-off on the terms stopped the xoffs etc., but the
terms overran. Sometimes you could see it, other times you had to stop
the whole works and scroll the buffers back.
Please remember my work was WORST CASE. I crammed all alpha data (no
spaces, nulls or extra stop bits) as fast as I could.
This does not say that things have not changed in the last 24 months,
but I doubt it.
What source of full speed, LONG (32K characters) 9600 baud did
you use for your tests?
--
decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!wb8foz
ncoast!wb8foz@case.csnet
(ncoast!wb8foz%case.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA)
"SERIOUS?
Bones, it could upset the entire percentage!"
lyndon@ncc.UUCP (Lyndon Nerenberg) (12/25/86)
In article <83@rdlvax.UUCP>, salzman@rdlvax.UUCP (Gumby) writes:
:
: I'm looking for a real good VT-100 (or VT-220) compatable terminal with
: some of the following features:
:
: - Fast enough to keep up with GNU Emacs at 9600 or 19.2K baud
: without ^S/^Q.
: - User accessable 25'th status line.
: - Programmable function keys.
: - Screen memory for 2 or more screens.
We've been using Wyse 85's for a few months now. They run 19.2K vi
without a hitch (haven't installed emacs yet )-: Also, I'm not sure
about the status line, but you get LOTS of programmable PF keys, and
they run with VT100 and VT220 emulaton modes (we currently use VT100).
Probably the nicest thing about them was the price - under $800 Canadian!
--
Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM) Systems Group - A Div. of Nexus Computing Corp.
UUCP: {ihnp4,ubc-vision,watmath}!alberta!ncc!lyndon BITNET: USERCHNL@UALTAMTS