home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.terminals
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!mizar.cc.umanitoba.ca!thompsn
- From: thompsn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Adam Thompson)
- Subject: Re: VT420s and Unix/Help appreciated
- Message-ID: <C17uC4.H9K@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
- Sender: news@ccu.umanitoba.ca
- Nntp-Posting-Host: vega.cc.umanitoba.ca
- Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
- References: <1993Jan20.154800.24726@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:07:15 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In <1993Jan20.154800.24726@infodev.cam.ac.uk> kmj1000@cus.cam.ac.uk (K.M. Jeary) writes:
- >Is there any significant advantage to be gained by, for example, defining
- >the VT420 as a vt200, compared to a vt100? Does anybody have an entry for
- >a (at a guess) vt400, and does it differ significantly from/have any advantage
- >over the vt100 entry?
-
- There is no large advantage. I would recommend using as highly-defined a
- termcap as possible... just for cursor optimization. However, you are
- likely:
- 1) running them at 9600(or more) bps -- cursor movement optimization
- becomes pretty much a moot point at that speed.
- 2) If you're like most places, server consoles could be just as well
- replaced with a Decwriter IV -- low use, basically a log of messages.
-
- It would probably be just fine to run as vt100, vt102, vt200/220, vt300/320
- - whatever you have termcap(/info) entries for. I have an extensive
- terminfo entry for a VT320 if you're interested. The one Sun ships has a
- few problems.
-
- >We run 3 4/690s under SunOS 4.1.2.
-
- Do you have any job openings ? :-)
-
- -Adam Thompson
- thompsn@ccu.umanitoba.ca
- --
- +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
- | Adam Thompson University of Manitoba Computer Services |
- | Adam_Thompson@umanitoba.ca OLC Project - Unix Group |
-