Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxm!mhuxo!ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!mpl
From: mpl@sfsup.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Using a PC for a terminal
Message-ID: <1516@sfsup.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jun-87 17:36:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: sfsup.1516
Posted: Mon Jun 15 17:36:56 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jun-87 02:28:22 EDT
References: <1149@carthage.swatsun.UUCP> <8601@tekecs.TEK.COM> <6828@mimsy.UUCP> <1075@laidbak.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T-IS, Summit N.J. USA
Lines: 24
Summary: AT&T gets bad rap

In article <1075@laidbak.UUCP>, katzung@laidbak.UUCP writes:
> - From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
> - Some (all?) PC/clones cannot keep up with speeds > 4800 baud in the VT100
> - terminal emulator (they lose bursts of characters, even with Xon-Xoff flow
> - control).  You want a PC, you buy a PC.  You want a terminal, well, I hope
> - you get an AT&T terminal (plug plug :-) ).

	[text deleted]
 
> It sounds as if you're suggesting that any AT&T terminal will keep up at
> speeds greater than 4800 baud!  I have news for you:  not all of them do.
> The one I have in mind has no host flow control.

	[more text deleted]

Well, as far as I know, all the AT&T *real* terminals for sale right now (ie
610) keep up with 9600 just fine (I've seen them do 19.2K without burping in
the lab, but my mahcine doesn't go that fast, so I don't know if the
"production models really go that fast).  Just stay away from the "fancy
features" terminals like the 510 (built-in phone, touch screen) if you really
need performance.

Mike Lindner
....!ihnp4!attunix!mpl