cab3@uafhp.uark.edu (Chad A. Bersche) (02/08/91)
I have recently been using Procomm Plus 2.0 and have come across a couple of
interesting "features" that have been added and I was wondering if anyone might
know of a way around them.
1) I can no longer send a Ctrl-] to a telnet session due to this now removing
the bottom status line in Procomm Plus. First, the status line doesn't
bother me, and second why not make it an Alt key like everything else.
2) I can't seen a Ctrl-\ now either, thanks again to the Monitor Mode (which
brings up the question of what it's for anyway).
Is there a workaround to these problems? The Ctrl-\ isn't that big a deal, but
losing control of my telnet jobs tends to bug me since I can't put them in
background anymore. *sigh*
Please reply via E-mail and if there's sufficient interest, I'll post the
solution to the net. Thanks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
cab3@engr.uark.edu - Chad A. Bersche Univ. of Arkansas Fayetteville CSEG
Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?
- Arthur Dentmamos@uafhp.uark.edu (Mark _E_ Amos) (02/12/91)
While we're on the subject, I would like to know if I expect too much for
the price, or is there a better comm program out there than Procomm Plus ?
The "features" added to the new version listed previously are an irritation
at most, but I use PC communications for "a living" etc., so minor
inconveniences that keep popping up seem to balloon. I have tried many other
comm programs in the past (Qmodem, Boyan, CrossTalk, ZCOMM(yuk), YAM, etc.)
but have become quite disillusioned by the seeming idiocy of the programmers
in some places. The new Procomm Plus 2.0 is a case in point, using <CTRL>
key combinations for local commands. As a network user this makes NO SENSE!
Did they write this thing strictly for BBS users?
I think the only reason I am so upset about it is the new version is
_so_close_ to being an ideal package - but really has some irritations. Am
I asking too much?
Before I get flamed, I'd better include the statement that we all seem to
need to keep from getting flamed by some schmuck: I know these are things
I can get around, but what I want to know is WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY MONEY TO
GET AROUND A DESIGN FLAW?!? Anyway, for those of you who want to tell me to
write my own d*mn software, don't bother - I'm already working on it.
--
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Mark _E_ Amos University of Arkansas Computer Science Engineering
mamos@uafhp.uark.edu mea1@engr.uark.edu
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Man's mind, when stretched to a new idea, never goes back to its original
dimension." -Oliver Wendell Holmes
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooorgc@raybed2.msd.ray.com (RICK CARLE) (02/12/91)
In article <mamos.666292688@uafhp>, mamos@uafhp.uark.edu (Mark _E_ Amos) writes: > > While we're on the subject, I would like to know if I expect too much for > the price, or is there a better comm program out there than Procomm Plus ? I tried the procomm+ test drive until mskermit 3.0 came out, then I switched to kermit for network use. Kermit 3.0 has the absolute best VT102 terminal emulation I've seen (after a little tuning) and, of course, it has the best kermit protocol. But no zmodem. Then rbcomm 3.3 appeared. It has a really great zmodem implementation. I've only just started using it, so I may be forming my opinions prematurely, but I plan to continue using kermit for Unix and rbcomm for BBS. All BBSs that I know provide zmodem or kermit protocol. Rick
luce@aurs01.UUCP (J. Luce) (02/13/91)
In article <mamos.666292688@uafhp> mamos@uafhp.uark.edu (Mark _E_ Amos) writes: > > While we're on the subject, I would like to know if I expect too much for > the price, or is there a better comm program out there than Procomm Plus ? > The "features" added to the new version listed previously are an irritation > [stuff deleted] I threw ProComm out the door LONG ago (I was recently given a copy of 2.0 commercial and that is trash also). I use Telix 3.11 I love it. It works as advertised and is quick. My only complaint: They really gotta workon their VT emulation :( ------------------------------------------------------------------- John Luce | Life is the leading cause of death Alcatel Network Systems | ----------------------------------------- Raleigh, NC | Standard Disclaimer Applies 919-850-6787 | Mail? Here? Try aurs01!aurw46!luce@mcnc.org | or ...!mcnc!aurgate!luce -------------------------------- or John.Luce@f130.n151.z1.fidonet.org
mlord@bnr-rsc.UUCP (Mark Lord) (02/13/91)
In article <2095@raybed2.msd.ray.com> rgc@raybed2.msd.ray.com (RICK CARLE) writes: >I tried the procomm+ test drive until mskermit 3.0 came out, then I >switched to kermit for network use. Kermit 3.0 has the absolute best >VT102 terminal emulation I've seen (after a little tuning) and, of >course, it has the best kermit protocol. But no zmodem. Then rbcomm >3.3 appeared. It has a really great zmodem implementation. I've only Well, actually it has a really great interface to DSZ, which IS zmodem. >just started using it, so I may be forming my opinions prematurely, but >I plan to continue using kermit for Unix and rbcomm for BBS. I use rbcomm for unix, with a 50x80 (or is that 80x50 ?) screen. Great for reading news at home. No problems at all with the vt100/2 emulation on our particular HP-UX system, and it even works properly with the eval `resize -c` thingie we use to automatically configure things for whatever screen size the terminal is currently set for. >All BBSs that I know provide zmodem or kermit protocol. Zmodem is available for most (all?) unix boxes.. look for the rzsz stuff. -- ___Mark S. Lord__________________________________________ | ..uunet!bnrgate!mlord%bmerh724 | Climb Free Or Die (NH) | | MLORD@BNR.CA Ottawa, Ontario | Personal views only. | |________________________________|________________________|
cpm00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com (Craig P McLaughlin) (02/15/91)
In article <59573@aurs01.UUCP> luce@aurw46.UUCP (J. Luce) writes: >I use Telix 3.11 I love it. It works as advertised and is quick. My >only complaint: They really gotta workon their VT emulation :( > A friend of mine recently said that he just got 3.12, and that the VT emulation was better. You might look into it. Craig McLaughlin cpm00@duts.ccc.amdahl.com
ron@vpnet.chi.il.us (Ron Winograd) (02/16/91)
I use Telix, and it has everything I could think or ask for, plus more. I use Telix 3.11, and I haven't found any vt emulations flaws yet. If you want a real term program, I highly recommend it. It even has all the different protocolls, inluding zmodem and kermit. It is great. Get a copy. -Ron Ron Winograd <Insert huge 20 line sig here> ron@vpnet.chi.il.us
stan@Dixie.Com (Stan Brown) (02/17/91)
Has anyone else had problems with Procomm timing out when it recieves an XOFF? What I meanis that if it recieves an XOFF and the XON takes a long time to arrive (say 1 min) it will go ahead & star sending again anyway ? Is ther any way to fix this ? Stan Brown
greg@eng.umd.edu (Gregory J. Wolodkin) (02/18/91)
In article <2095@raybed2.msd.ray.com> (RICK CARLE) writes: >I tried the procomm+ test drive until mskermit 3.0 came out, then I >switched to kermit for network use. Kermit 3.0 has the absolute best >VT102 terminal emulation I've seen (after a little tuning) and, of >course, it has the best kermit protocol. But no zmodem. Then rbcomm >3.3 appeared. It has a really great zmodem implementation. [...] I also set fire to procomm+... indeed there is no kermit like kermit. There is an excellent freeware Zmodem driver, written by Drue Kennon and Gary Smith, available at wuarchive as /mirrors/msdos/zmodem/pcz30390.zip. It's not a complete comm program, but rather lends itself to being called from your existing non-Z comm program. Works well with kermit. Cheers, Greg greg@eng.umd.edu