Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!gargoyle!ihnp4!chinet!fmsrl7!wayne From: wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (//ichael R. //ayne) Newsgroups: comp.terminals Subject: Re: New(er) Televideo problems Message-ID: <2630@fmsrl7.UUCP> Date: Mon, 21-Sep-87 02:42:03 EDT Article-I.D.: fmsrl7.2630 Posted: Mon Sep 21 02:42:03 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Sep-87 03:37:13 EDT References: <285@pan.UUCP> Reply-To: wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (/\/\ichael R. \/\/ayne) Organization: Ford Motor Company, Scientific Research Labs, Dearborn, MI Lines: 49 In article <285@pan.UUCP> jw@pan.UUCP (Jamie Watson) writes: >What could be worse than a Televideo? Perhaps a newer Televideo? One of >my customers recently ended up with a couple of Televideo 955 terminals. >It really wasn't his fault... It seems that there is more than one ype of TeleVideo 950. I have (frequent) discussions with people who hat them because they are impossible to use. All I can reply with is that the 4 I have used at work and the 2 I have at home have the crispest, most stable display I have seen on a terminal. This leads me to believe that TVI made a significant change in their line at some point. I have a 955 at work now. I do not like the display as much as my old 950 but the larger screen is kind of nice. It took me about an hour to develop a new termcap that worked in 955 native mode. The magic cookie is completely gone in this mode. Given the screen jitter and flashes, I am torn between going back to the 950 and living with magic cookies and staying with the 955. >They asked me to set it up and write termcap descriptions for them. When I >read the manual, I was dumbfounded. I vaguely recalled hearing or reading >somewhere that Televideo had finally gotten away from the magic cookie >glitch. Well, if this is it, they didn't quite get away from it. They have. >The 955 has two attribute modes, which Televideo boldly calls 'embedded' >and 'non-embedded'. The embedded mode is just what you expect, attributes >have magic cookies, like the 950, did, and the 925, and the 912... But the >non-embedded mode has a very long description, which boils down to when you >send the set-attribute sequence, something magic happens inside the terminal >which allows you to write the next - *only* the next - character on the same >screen location you were at when you sent set attribute. After that next >character, whatever it was, the terminal reverts to traditional Televideo >behavior; if at any later time you write any character to that screen >location, you lose the attribute! What could this mode possibly be called? >Perhaps, 'magic magic cookie'? Or 'voodoo cookie'? Perhaps you are confused? I would include a termcap but mine is highly customized for a specific curses which has field conflicts with BSD 4.3. /\/\ \/\/ -- Michael R. Wayne *** TMC & Associates *** INTERNET: wayne@ford-vax.arpa uucp: {philabs | pyramid} !fmsrl7!wayne OR wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP