Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!think!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!udel!haven!decuac!shlump.nac.dec.com!arkham.enet.dec.com!elvira!ridder
From: ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com (Hans Ridder)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: JRComm (Was Re: AMIGA too slow for speeds higher than 9600 Baud? HELP!)
Message-ID: <283@arkham.enet.dec.com>
Date: 3 May 90 17:18:32 GMT
References: <02373.AA02373@spirit.kref.sub.org> <625@titan.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> <22897@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1332@faatcrl.UUCP> <334@ncc1701.sub.org> <1352@faatcrl.UUCP>
Sender: news@arkham.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Customer Support Center
Lines: 24

In article <1352@faatcrl.UUCP> jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan) writes:
>  Well, the problem here is that ANSI (VT100 & IBM) "know" only 80*25.  If
>  there's some sort of bent variation to take advantage of a PAL display, I've
>  yet to hear about it.

You're confusing the ANSI *standard* with the VT100 and IBM
*implementation*.  The ANSI standards (X3.41 and X3.64) make no
mention of display size.  It is prefectly legal (standards wise) to
have a screen 80x25, 80x66, 132x66, 132x24, 8x10, or any other size
you like.  However, most software is too lame to understand that
terminal screens come in different sizes, so it is best to have a
screen at least 80x24 in size.

In summary, it is possible to have a "PAL" size display (whatever that
works out to be), but it *may* not be very usefull.

>  -jack-

-hans

========================================================================
  Hans-Gabriel Ridder			Digital Equipment Corporation
  ridder@elvira.enet.dec.com		Customer Support Center
  ...decwrl!elvira.enet!ridder		Colorado Springs, CO