Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ficc!walker From: walker@ficc.uu.net (Walker Mangum) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix Subject: Re: AT&T 630 terminal - software ?? Summary: It ain't the hardware... Message-ID: <2792@ficc.uu.net> Date: 18 Jan 89 13:22:53 GMT References: <242@hsi86.hsi.UUCP> <1003@vsi.COM> <9348@smoke.BRL.MIL> <379@bilver.UUCP> Organization: Adytum, Inc. Lines: 26 In article <379@bilver.UUCP>, bill@bilver.UUCP (bill vermillion) writes: > [ ... ] > > A PC doens't seem smart enought to be able to walk and chew gum at the same > time. :-) By that I mean that the PC doing 9600bps can't do a decent vt100 > emulation (using Smarterm) and give screen displays that approach that of a > dedicated terminal. It had been observed (not timed with a watch but gut > level reactions) that there was no difference in display speeds between 2400, > 4800 and 9600. The difference from 1200 to 2400 was slight. This was noted > on an 8mHz AT box with Xenix 2.2.2 and a Computone board as the serial > handler. No, the truth is, Xenix 2.2.2 and Smarterm are just very slow gum-chewers. We developed a product in 1984 for PC's (running MS-DOS, no less) that does complete terminal emulation, including mode, that had no problem at speeds up to 9600, on a 4.77MHz 8088. On a 6 Mhz AT, the terminal emulation was able to keep up with the incoming data at up to 19.2k. We're now using a 16Mhz 386 clone, and are demonstrating REAL throughput of 115.2k. That's using a standard PC asynch adapter. -- Walker Mangum | Adytum, Incorporated phone: (713) 333-1509 | 1100 NASA Road One UUCP: uunet!ficc!walker (walker@ficc.uu.net) | Houston, TX 77058 Disclaimer: $#!+ HAPPENS