Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!mkhaw
From: mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Mike Khaw)
Newsgroups: comp.terminals
Subject: Re: HDS terminals
Message-ID: <18977@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 18-Nov-87 15:47:54 EST
Article-I.D.: teknowle.18977
Posted: Wed Nov 18 15:47:54 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Nov-87 11:04:49 EST
References: <2189@encore.UUCP>
Organization: Teknowledge, Inc., Palo Alto CA
Lines: 27

> I agree that HDS makes terminals with great features and at a pretty low
> cost.  But, back at my previous job, I didn't buy them.  Not because of
> reliability problems, *but* because they could barely do 9600 baud without
> flow control!  19200 was effectively flow-controlled back down to an
> effect `11000 baud'.  Can anyone with one of HDS's recent terminals
> tell me this is no longer a problem?

I timed our HDS terminals by doing something like

	(first set no flow control in the terminal's setup mode)

	csh% set time
	csh% cat /etc/termcap

on an unloaded system and then dividing the size of /etc/termcap by the
elapsed clock time.  The HDS 200 came out to something like 480 chars/sec
(4800 bps) or somewhat faster, but definitely not able to do 9600 bps.  The
newer HDS 2000 came out to roughly 960 chars/sec or better, but unable to do
19200 bps.  There were some (non-HDS) terminals we looked at that could really
do 19200 bps ... I only wish our tty-lines and tcp/ip terminal servers could
handle 38400 bps, so I could have tried them at that speed!

Mike Khaw
-- 
internet:  mkhaw@teknowledge-vaxc.arpa
usenet:	   {uunet|sun|ucbvax|decwrl|uw-beaver}!mkhaw%teknowledge-vaxc.arpa
USnail:	   Teknowledge Inc, 1850 Embarcadero Rd, POB 10119, Palo Alto, CA 94303