Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!JTW@MIT-XX.ARPA From: JTW@MIT-XX.ARPA Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: VT100 and bagbiting Message-ID: <1307@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 26-Jun-84 16:04:42 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.1307 Posted: Tue Jun 26 16:04:42 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 04:00:29 EDT Lines: 30 From: "John T. Wroclawski" From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) Subject: Re: VT100 and bagbiting The VT100 requires NO padding even at 19.2Kb if you enable XON/XOFF flow control and if your so-called UNIX handles XON/XOFF correctly. Any really interesting video terminal could conceivably require flow control to keep its buffer from being overrun at high baud rates while doing time-consuming display operations, such as smooth scrolling which is a big WIN. Well, of course. However, any terminal which requires XON/XOFF to perform standard video operations at a particular speed is incompatable with emacs and a number of other programs and is thus unusable at that speed for many people. In some cases you can get around this with padding, which makes the terminal more usable. In other cases (VT125, say), you cannot ever completely hide the braindamage. Since it quite clearly is *possible* to make terminals that do not need heavy padding to run at 9.6Kb with all the video operations needed by good screen editors, I think it is only fair to say that those manufacturers who have not managed to do so have inferior products. -------