home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: ekl@sdf.lonestar.org (Evan K. Langlois)
- Subject: 80x25 Terminal?
- Date: Tue, 18 Jan 94 15:54:57 CST
-
-
- ======================================
- to write a GEM-based X server for it and the other way round. Sure.
- You're not going to admit in your next letter that you are satisfied
- with a 80x25 column terminal screen, are you?
- ======================================
-
- Can you please explain that remark about 80x25 terminal screen?
- Its not true of Unix-boxes, even the dumb-terminal on my desk has a
- 132 column mode and a tektronics mode (1024x240 mono). I =AM=
- running an 80x25 terminal window with a Unix shell in it and an 80x24
- terminal window .. well, with the terminal I'm typing on running in
- it. I still have lots of room for icons, menus, and that sort of
- thing using an alternate font (w/GDOS). Its a nice size. In fact, I
- think it's the CONNECT font. Yep it is.
-
- So, neither system is being turned into an 80x25 terminal screen. I
- could set either window to whatever size I wanted. I =DO= think that
- GEM has some serious flaws. The last I knew, GEM still polled for
- events from the VDI so GEMs polling uses about 90% of the CPU time, and
- we wonder why running LZH in a window or something is a bit slow. It
- should be interrupt driven. IO should be DMA/interrupt driven, not a
- loop in rwabs!! These are the two things that I see as being the most
- urgent.
-
- I agree that we are spending too much time worrying about the paths of a
- Unix system. But some standard should be created. If not, I'll suggest
- one (the paths I use) and then see if that brings the topic from the
- theoretical to the practical.
-
-
-