Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c:34375 comp.misc:10662 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!vsi1!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,comp.misc Subject: Re: Terminal Type/Productivity correlation Message-ID: <275580D2.3D70@tct.uucp> Date: 29 Nov 90 21:42:42 GMT References: <4738@dogie.macc.wisc.edu> <1990Nov15.054228.16176@clear.com> <12332@fsg.UUCP> Followup-To: comp.misc Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 23 [ Followups to comp.misc ] According to onward@fsg.UUCP (Onward Lam): >How about a discussion on Editors and productivity (NO, not the >vi vs. emacs religious debate), but more like size of terminals >(ie. lines x columns), or windows/xterms vs ascii terminals. I use 25x80 exclusively, but it's either SCO's "mscreen" program with our home-grown multi-screen ANSI terminal emulation program, or KA9Q over an Ethernet, hacked for multi-screen ANSI emulation. As a result, I have at least four sessions available simulaneously, and switching among them is as easy as . I find this arrangement close to ideal for development and debugging, since I can almost literally do four things at once. As to line count: I prefer four screens of 80x25 to fewer screens with more characters, since I find tiny characters distractingly difficult to read. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , "I've been cranky ever since my comp.unix.wizards was removed by that evil Chip Salzenberg." -- John F. Haugh II