Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gvlv2!faatcrl!jprad
From: jprad@faatcrl.UUCP (Jack Radigan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: PAL vs NTSC screen sizes in coms progs
Message-ID: <1433@faatcrl.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jun 90 21:59:46 GMT
References: <8750@wehi.dn.mu.oz> <4421@munnari.oz.au>
Organization: FAA Technical Center, Atlantic City NJ
Lines: 17

ianr@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au (Ian ROWLANDS) writes:

>	Whoever said the first statement originally is out of their mind. I
>use terminal programs that sometimes require vt100 emulation. I have tried
>most of them (PD ones), and I use VLT. Why? It supports more than 24 lines
>on a screen. I use it's basic default (i.e 40). I can't find any other terminal
>program which does this in a half decent way. Some others do 48, but that
>seemsd too much (I've tried it, but don't like it). When I require colour and
>other pretty things for calling BBS's, I use JRComm. When I ring the university
>and expect to need vt100, I use VLT and it's 40 line length.

The original thread was about IBM ANSI screens larger than 25 lines.  Although
it _is_ ANSI, it _is_ unique enough that there is no "right" way to deal with
the remote system since they only "know" 25 lines.  I'm talking BBS systems
that have no concept of knowing otherwise.

  -jack-