Aucbvax.6067
fa.info-terms
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!info-terms
Wed Feb  3 13:48:34 1982
Re: Evaluation of CIT-101
>From Admin.JQJ@SU-SCORE Wed Feb  3 13:37:23 1982
One thing to check for whenever evaluating a "lookalike" terminal is
varying padding requirements.  For the VT100, the requirements are
highest on things like smooth scrolling and scrolling with a region
defined (scrolling the whole screen turns out to be quite fast).  If
your lookalike has HIGHER padding requirements than the VT100, then
obviously it may not be able to run the same software, particularly at
9600 baud or 19.2Kb.  This is, of course, not a problem if your
software uses XON/XOFF instead of time fills, but some programs (e.g.
Emacs) use ^S/^Q for their own purposes, so MUST use fill characters
or delays.

Another thing to be careful of is special features that differ
between different versions of DEC Ansi terminals.  Among the ones
I've found to present problems are the scrolling region, alternate
character sets, end of screen behavior, and graphics.  For example,
the Gigi is almost a VT100 but with horrible padding requirements and
no scrolling region; experience writing VT100 simulators for various
machines seems to indicate that scrolling regions are one thing you
tend to get wrong (e.g. on the VT100 one can't have a 1-line
scrolling region, and can't do relative cursor motion out of a
scrolling region without totally confusing the terminal).  Similarly,
what happens when you write a character in the last position of the
screen (particularly if you've cleared auto wrap)?
-------