Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!uflorida!mephisto!ncsuvx!mcnc!rti!bcw
From: bcw@rti.rti.org (Bruce Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Looking for terminal emulator with perks.
Summary: Some hosts do accept long displays ...
Message-ID: <4014@rtifs1.UUCP>
Date: 10 Aug 90 01:56:29 GMT
References: <5433@plains.UUCP> <312@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, RTP, NC
Lines: 40

In article <312@saxony.pa.reuter.COM>, dgil@pa.reuter.COM (Dave Gillett) writes:
> In <5433@plains.UUCP> bezenek@plains.NoDak.edu (Todd M. Bezenek KO0N) writes:
> >	o  A 43 line mode.
> Why?  This might be handy for talking to hosts that expect teletypes (real or
> glass), but full-screen hosts expect say, a VT-100, to have 24 display lines
> and so will never make use of the extra 18--you'll just have to squint to
> read the tiny characters. 

Some hosts _do_ in fact allow you to set the number of lines > 24 -
DEC's VMS, for example!  This can actually be useful if you are
editing files - you can see more context (if I'm running on a
DECwindows environment I usually set the page length to 48, though
of course that's on a bigger monitor than what's usually found on
a PC and the terminal emulator window is rather taller than a normal
monitor aspect ratio ...).  What's legible is somewhat subjective, 
and dependent on the size of the monitor used.  Even on small 
monitors the tiny characters can still sometimes be useful since you 
get more context.  And DEC's latest character-mode terminals (the 
VT420, the descendant of the VT100) allow you to set the page length 
to 36 or 48, though I will grant that the result may not be legible 
for everyone.

> Seriously, developing device-independent communications displays
> (XWindows, or distributed applications) is a much more sensible 
> step than kludging more lines onto an imitation of 15-year-old
> technology.

I'm not sure I disagree with the statement that this is a _better_ 
technology.  But in the meantime, it's a fairly _expensive_ technology
(though it _is_ getting quite a bit cheaper), and we'll have old 
hardware floating around that can support 43 or 48 lines but not 
XWindows for some years into the future (why replace it when it still 
works fine for almost all of the things you're using it for?).  In 
light of this I think it's perfectly reasonable to look for software 
that supports more lines on a PC screen.

I think I remember someone saying that Procomm supported this, but
I'm not certain and am not familiar with the product.

						Bruce C. Wright