bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) (01/16/89)
In article <2028@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) writes: > (pricing of ATT 630 deleted. wjv) >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). I work on a lot of little Xenix system. One site has 11 installations varying between 286 & 386 machines. Most connections are terminals, but about 8 or so are PC's with terminal emulation. This is so that one serial port can talk asynch to Xenix the other can talk Burroughs TDI Polled interface. A PC doens't seem smart enought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. :-) By that I mean that the PC doing 9600bps can't do a decent vt100 emulation (using Smarterm) and give screen displays that approach that of a dedicated terminal. It had been observed (not timed with a watch but gut level reactions) that there was no difference in display speeds between 2400, 4800 and 9600. The difference from 1200 to 2400 was slight. This was noted on an 8mHz AT box with Xenix 2.2.2 and a Computone board as the serial handler. Last week the system was replaced with an IBM 80-71 (16mHz version). The serial board was the Anvil Stallion. Display speed has gone up - so part of the limitation may have been handshaking in the Computone - however it was not a speed problem with the Computone as 19,200 terminals worked fine. The 9600 bps connections now display closer to a 4800 - but nowhere near what they should look like on a 9600bps terminal. I don't think that emulations even approaching a BLIT would be effective. If the PC clones were 10 mHz 286 machines they might work better. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/17/89)
In article <379@bilver.UUCP>, bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) writes: > > In article <2028@ndsuvax.UUCP> ncoverby@ndsuvax.UUCP (Glen Overby) writes: > >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? They have. It's called "uw", and runs on the Mac, Amiga, and Atari ST. It requires a BSD system for the host-side program. Then there's DNET for the Amiga, that talks TCP/IP over a serial port. Anyone got a System-V version of the "uw" host-side program. > A PC doens't seem smart enought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same > time. :-) So get a Mac, Amiga, or Atari ST. Preferably the Amiga... DNET is supposedly pretty hot stuff. -- 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.
walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) (01/18/89)
In article <379@bilver.UUCP>, bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) writes: > [ ... ] > > A PC doens't seem smart enought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same > time. :-) By that I mean that the PC doing 9600bps can't do a decent vt100 > emulation (using Smarterm) and give screen displays that approach that of a > dedicated terminal. It had been observed (not timed with a watch but gut > level reactions) that there was no difference in display speeds between 2400, > 4800 and 9600. The difference from 1200 to 2400 was slight. This was noted > on an 8mHz AT box with Xenix 2.2.2 and a Computone board as the serial > handler. No, the truth is, Xenix 2.2.2 and Smarterm are just very slow gum-chewers. We developed a product in 1984 for PC's (running MS-DOS, no less) that does complete terminal emulation, including <buffered/block/page> mode, that had no problem at speeds up to 9600, on a 4.77MHz 8088. On a 6 Mhz AT, the terminal emulation was able to keep up with the incoming data at up to 19.2k. We're now using a 16Mhz 386 clone, and are demonstrating REAL throughput of 115.2k. That's using a standard PC asynch adapter. -- Walker Mangum | Adytum, Incorporated phone: (713) 333-1509 | 1100 NASA Road One UUCP: uunet!ficc!walker (walker@ficc.uu.net) | Houston, TX 77058 Disclaimer: $#!+ HAPPENS
bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) (01/20/89)
In article <2792@ficc.uu.net> walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) writes: >In article <379@bilver.UUCP>, bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) writes: > >> [ ... ] >> >> A PC doens't seem smart enought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same >> time. :-) By that I mean that the PC doing 9600bps can't do a decent vt100 > >No, the truth is, Xenix 2.2.2 and Smarterm are just very slow gum-chewers. We >developed a product in 1984 for PC's (running MS-DOS, no less) that does >complete terminal emulation, including <buffered/block/page> mode, that had no >problem at speeds up to 9600, on a 4.77MHz 8088. On a 6 Mhz AT, the terminal >emulation was able to keep up with the incoming data at up to 19.2k. We're >now using a 16Mhz 386 clone, and are demonstrating REAL throughput of 115.2k. >That's using a standard PC asynch adapter. > Well I can't change from the Xenix 2.2.2 and it has not problems at 38,200 on REAL terminals. I wasn't losing data at 9600 on Smartterm but the screen displays were no faster at 4800 and 9600 than they were at 2400. Now - about your program - you didn't mention any names. And if I am somewhat typical there are other who probably want to know what/where/how-much? It need to be able to do transparent print to an attached pc, just like a vt100. Can it do it? Where can I find more information on this program. Boards in the '286ers are Computones. The two '386s I just installed are using the Anvil Stallion. That board is a real performer. Thanks in advance for any info you can share. bill -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd}!peora!rtmvax!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) (01/23/89)
In article <386@bilver.UUCP>, bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) writes: | In article <2792@ficc.uu.net> walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) writes: | >In article <379@bilver.UUCP>, bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) writes: | >> | >> A PC doesn't seem smart enought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same | >> time. :-) By that I mean that the PC doing 9600bps can't do a decent vt100 | > | >No, the truth is, Xenix 2.2.2 and Smarterm are just very slow gum-chewers. | > | > [ ... ] | > | >now using a 16Mhz 386 clone, and are demonstrating REAL throughput of 115.2k. | >That's using a standard PC asynch adapter. | > | | Now - about your program - you didn't mention any names. And if I am somewhat | typical there are other who probably want to know what/where/how-much? | | It need to be able to do transparent print to an attached pc, just like a | vt100. Can it do it? Where can I find more information on this program. | Boards in the '286ers are Computones. The two '386s I just installed are | using the Anvil Stallion. That board is a real performer. | | Thanks in advance for any info you can share. The software is called "PC Workstation", and it does some real nifty stuff, like implement a "one-sided" network via the asynch channel, that allows the host system to access the PC's file system DIRECTLY. That is, the PC's file system appears to belong to the host. Although it was developed for Modcomp minicomputer hosts, the PC software is not host-specific. Drivers for any other host OS could be easily developed. It does include transparent print, block mode, etc., XMODEM, macro- programmability and even a full-featured local input line editor. However, it is a DOS-only product. There are no plans to port it to XENIX. If this doesn't turn you off, let me know, and I'll send you a product bulletin on it. -- Walker Mangum | Adytum, Incorporated phone: (713) 333-1509 | 1100 NASA Road One UUCP: uunet!ficc!walker (walker@ficc.uu.net) | Houston, TX 77058 Disclaimer: $#!+ HAPPENS