jbn@glacier.STANFORD.EDU (John B. Nagle) (12/23/88)
1. Wireless keyboards have been tried. Remember the PC Jr? Not only was the keyboard wireless, it was washable. Didn't sell. Keeping multiple machines in the same room from interfering required a more elaborate communications approach than the PC Jr. used; this limited applications of the machine. 2. Large, flat plasma panels have been tried. IBM used to offer one as a mainframe peripheral, and it's even been seen on a PC at Comdex ('84). About 2 feet square, and red. The interface had some problems that made it very painful to program, but the device worked quite well. Plasma panels about 6' x 8' by 4" thick are available for about $100,000, but these are militarized units.
kenchin@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Ken H. Chin) (12/24/88)
In article <17924@glacier.STANFORD.EDU> jbn@glacier.UUCP (John B. Nagle) writes: > > > 2. Large, flat plasma panels have been tried. IBM used to offer one > as a mainframe peripheral, and it's even been seen on a PC at > Comdex ('84). About 2 feet square, and red. The interface had > some problems that made it very painful to program, but the device > worked quite well. Plasma panels about 6' x 8' by 4" thick are > available for about $100,000, but these are militarized units. The IBM terminals with gas plasma screens were large enough to display four login sessions at one time. But the BIG disadvantage, is their lack of a brightness control. It was impossible to use one near a window without the sun washing out the screen. The red color of the display was also somewhat irritating.
hyc@math.lsa.umich.edu (Howard Chu) (12/27/88)
In article <8506@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> kenchin@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ken H. Chin) writes: >The IBM terminals with gas plasma screens were large enough to display >four login sessions at one time. But the BIG disadvantage, is their >lack of a brightness control. It was impossible to use one near >a window without the sun washing out the screen. The red color of the >display was also somewhat irritating. (What do you mean, "were" ? }-) We have one of these here at the Computing Center. It's in a device IBM calls a 3290, sort of a glorified 3270. I believe you can actually partition the display into 8 or 16 rectangular regions for separate sessions. It's sitting in an office away from windows, so sunlight isn't a problem. However, it seems to have an incredibly slow draw/refresh rate, which can get you into trouble when a lot of text starts scrolling in... It must be about a 19" display. Ok, but I'm glad I have a real bit-mapped display on my desktop... -- / /_ , ,_. Howard Chu / /(_/(__ University of Michigan / Computing Center College of LS&A ' Unix Project Information Systems
rfm@sun.com (Rich McAllister) (12/28/88)
In article <8506@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> kenchin@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Ken H. Chin) writes: >The IBM terminals with gas plasma screens were large.. In article <526@stag.math.lsa.umich.edu>, hyc@math (Howard Chu) writes: >We have one of these.. It's in a device IBM calls a 3290, sort of a >glorified 3270. ...it seems to have an incredibly slow draw/refresh rate, >which can get you into trouble when a lot of text starts scrolling in... I suspect the slow drawing rate is due to the drawing being done by the anemic, shared "display controller" (3274?) IBM used for 3278/3279/3290 style displays, rather than any inherent slowness of plasma displays. The CRT-based "big screen" (43 x 80 character!) 3278s took a noticeable interval to redraw, too. It occurs to me that plasma screens might have an *advantage* in performance. Plasma-panel pixels have "memory": once set or reset, they stay on or off, and don't need refreshing. This means they don't eat memory bandwidth like CRT displays do. -- Rich McAllister (rfm@sun.com)