Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!feg
From: feg@clyde.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: ANSI device driver
Message-ID: <12274@clyde.ATT.COM>
Date: Fri, 14-Aug-87 12:48:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: clyde.12274
Posted: Fri Aug 14 12:48:48 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 16:45:27 EDT
References: <5138@j.cc.purdue.edu> <773@custom.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany, NJ
Lines: 23
Summary: Fansi not always faster

In article <773@custom.UUCP>, boykin@custom.UUCP (Joseph Boykin) writes:
> In article <5138@j.cc.purdue.edu>, aip@j.cc.purdue.edu (Bret Johnson) writes:
> >      Does anyone know if the ANSI driver that is included with MS-DOS is a 
> > full implementation of the ANSI standard.  I have a copy of the standard and
> > it lists about three times as many command sequences as does my DOS manual.
> 
> ANSI.SYS contains a *very* minimal subset of the ANSI standard
> set of escape sequences (X3.64).  It is also relatively slow.
> If you're looking for ANSI compatability there are two alternatives;
> NANSI.SYS, which is public domain or sharewhare (I'm not sure which).
> 
> The second alternative is FANSI-CONSOLE which is a commercial 
> FANSI is faster than NANSI and provides alot more features, of course


The Leading Edge Model M running 7.2Mhz and CGA shows NANSI runs faster
than Fansi if less flutter and no colored snow are criteria. When Fansi
set for no colored snow, flutter is very objectionable with CGA and
writing speed definitely slower. This may be a characteristic of CGA
(a lousy implementation, anyway), but if you have a color crt and are
using CGA, flutter can get to you fairly quickly.

Forrest Gehrke