Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxa.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!cbosgd!cbdkc1!pyuxmm!pyuxnn!pyuxi!pyuxa!weamc
From: weamc@pyuxa.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng,net.nlang
Subject: Re: long names and hardware...
Message-ID: <410@pyuxa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-Dec-83 11:41:55 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxa.410
Posted: Mon Dec  5 11:41:55 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Dec-83 09:12:46 EST
References: <6196@watmath.UUCP>, <507@dciem.UUCP>, <1490@utcsstat.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Piscataway
Lines: 19

I am not sure that the problem is in hardware. I run my terminal hooked
to my computer at home at 9600 baud, and I can draw amy kind of menu
I like. Personally, I think that ASCII terminals are an elegant solution
to a very difficult problem, and I do not think that bit-mapped terminals
are the answer. Look at the chaos in micros, with everybody implementing
their own version of screen-handling. Software becomes very unportable.
A higher baud rate will partially solve the delay problem with menus, and
the rest of it will be solved by better use of the cursor-addressing
features of terminals. Many programs (written more than two or three
years ago) do not use cursor-addressing, so they put out many time-wasting
blanks.
  As for bit-mapped graphics and "windows," I think the jury is still out.
Windows are cute, exercise and demonstrate the graphics capability of a 
system, and the idea is the latest buzzword, but a higher baud rate
(i.e. the ability to re-write the screen quickly with another application)
will address most of the issues that windows supposedly address. Does
anyone recall if Xerox ever did any research to indicate that windows
improve human performance?????
                                 Andy Cohill