Xref: utzoo comp.graphics:15332 comp.windows.x:31479
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!bellcore!porthos!pyuxe!nvuxr!rdm2
From: rdm2@nvuxr.UUCP (R McBurnett)
Newsgroups: comp.graphics,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: NAPLPS interpreters?
Keywords: NAPLPS
Message-ID: <1912@nvuxr.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jan 91 14:50:48 GMT
References: <1991Jan7.113439@rioja.ifs.umich.edu> <1991Jan10.002715.4539@alphalpha.com>
Reply-To: rdm2@nvuxr.UUCP (22147-R McBurnett)
Followup-To: comp.graphics
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Red Bank, NJ
Lines: 21

In article <1991Jan10.002715.4539@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>That I'd love to see (well, second only to a BBS which supported
>Prodigy protocol).  However I believe that Prodigy is a completely
>home-grown protocol?  I know for certain that they are continually
>enhancing it and adding new features.  Is it really based on NAPLPS?
>Has anyone done any reverse engineering on it?
>						-kee
>nazgul@alfalfa.com		|-----------------------------------

I have talked with the Prodigy people (about 2 years ago) about their
service and graphics.  They have done a home grown protocol that is
loosly based on NAPLPS, but with their own extensions.  I don't think
that it resembles real NAPLPS by now.  One of the major problems with
NAPLPS is that is was designed to handle very low resolution displays,
like NTSC TVs as well as much higher resolution stuff.  It was good for
it's time but I think that now we have progressed on to better stuff.

-Roe McBurnett
-- 
Roe D McBurnett III	Bellcore		|these are my own
(201)758-2333	 rdm2@bcr.cc.bellcore.com	|rantings not Bellcore's