Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!stride!tahoe!malc From: malc@tahoe.UUCP (Malcolm L. Carlock) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: IBM PC as a terminal (was Re: when using termcap, get it right!) Message-ID: <497@tahoe.UUCP> Date: Thu, 4-Jun-87 15:17:34 EDT Article-I.D.: tahoe.497 Posted: Thu Jun 4 15:17:34 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jun-87 03:03:09 EDT References: <1149@carthage.swatsun.UUCP> <8601@tekecs.TEK.COM> <6828@mimsy.UUCP> <16906@amdcad.AMD.COM> <931@maynard.BSW.COM> Reply-To: malc@tahoe.UUCP (Malcolm L. Carlock) Organization: Univ. of Nev., Reno-Mathematics Lines: 58 --- Line eater food --- In article <931@maynard.BSW.COM> campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell) writes: >Bah. The IBM keyboards are detestable. They are much too noisy for >office or home ... perhaps they'd be suitable for a factory floor. >Their layout is atrocious. And until recently they obnoxiously overloaded >the numeric keypad with function and cursor keys. Everyone agrees that >NumLock is a total botch. Amen to that. The original PC keyboards were horribly laid out (dinky return key, teeny shift keys causing one to hit the ALT or '\' by mistake ... ACKPHT!) Most of the clone keyboards were from the beginning (deliberately?) laid out better than IBM's! >And the IBM monitor? Gack. Either you're talking about a CGA and IBM >color monitor, since you mention graphics, or you're talking about >the monochrome adapter. The CGA is garbage -- you'd go blind looking >at it for eight hours a day. The monochrome adapter does deliver nicely >formed characters at a reasonable resolution, but the IBM monochrome >green screen has such a long persistence that when the display scrolls, >it smears like Tammy Bakker's mascara. The IBM monitors are indeed trash. Not only do they smear and have generally poor resolution, but the the lower half of the screen flickers quite conspicuously and annoyingly during scrolling. This makes watching the thing scroll a very unpleasant experience. Admittedly, the serif'ed font that IBM uses on its monitors is a nice idea, but who needs it? Why should I go blind trying to read a monitor that can't properly resolve those "nice" characters? Even the better clone monitors aren't as easy to read as most simple "dumb" terminal screens. Unless monitors become widely available that use considerably finer text resolution, forget the fancy screen fonts. GIVE ME A CLEAN, EASY-TO-READ FONT ON THE SCREEN. I DON'T NEED MY TEXT TO BE FANCY-LOOKING UNTIL IT GETS TO THE PRINTER! > . . . you're sure not going to build a decent terminal with IBM hardware. Indeed, this is true. "I am the ghost of IBM monitors past and present!" "Bah, humbug! And furthermore, ACKPHT!!" Thanks for following me this far. Larry, thanks for bringing up the subject. profoundly, ll -------------------- ll ----------------------------------------------------- m mmm mmm aaaaa ll ccccc Plan: to follow the timesharer's motto: mm m m a a ll c c m m m a a ll c ********************************* m m m a a ll c * "Batches?! We don' need no * m m m a aa ll c c * stinking batches!!" * m m m aaaaaa ll ccccc ********************************* ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- malc@tahoe U of N/Reno Dis claimer, dat claimer, de other claimer... -----------------------------------------------------------------------------