From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 2004 05:41:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 9 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082464911 31010 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2004 12:41:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:41:51 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171810 in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. my questions is where was the processing for keyboard (or mouse or any other input device) taking place?? did the dumb terminal have that basic processing power or did the kb and mouse i/p signals were sent to the mainframe(or main server) and again sent back to cpu in the form of display singals?? regards, yogesh ###### From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Lines: 50 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s02 1082466183 24.62.97.34 (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s02.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171813 "yogesh" wrote in message news:f88a27e4.0404200441.2209e7b0@posting.google.com... > in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. > my questions is where was the processing for keyboard (or mouse or any > other input device) taking place?? did the dumb terminal have that > basic processing power or did the kb and mouse i/p signals were sent > to the mainframe(or main server) and again sent back to cpu in the > form of display singals?? I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us older folks or, at least, don't have the long background many of us do. You seem to be genuinely curious about how thing once were... so here goes. For the hardware classically referred to as "dumb terminals," there were no mice. It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to indicate which key had been pressed. In the reverse, the computer sent the ASCII for a character or a movement, and the terminal put it on the screen, or moved the cursor. Again, speaking truly dumb (ADM3, *not* ADM3A) the "movement" was limited to (usually) Carrage Return, Line Feed and, perhaps, Back. There was no cursor addressing (the appended "A" in ADM3A was for addressing). Later models would accept longer sequences, again thinking of VT52, VT100, but there were certainly others, which would do more complex cursor operations or even far more complex things, like select text pages or draw graphics or select colors. At this point the terminals (and earlier) they had microprocessors in them and extensive programming was being done to handle the complexities. I remember there was a particular model of graphics terminal put out by (I think) HP in the early 70's that had two or three Z80's in it and there was a group of hackers (classical use of the word, not criminal use) working out ways to turn it into a graphics computer. My few recollections in dealing with "terminals" which had mice were all X terminals which were computers in their own right and communicated in a not particularly dumb way with the "mainframe." - Bill ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:16:58 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: TCS Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 08:16:58 -0500 Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.184.183 X-Trace: sv3-a4zd+Uk7ub4yowkQa+KzLdf+ZpqIFd2K7TLbuykaG6x1g07QFxP2DfDh7rUKRfftzErlLMBYDREaYk+!b/dN7Ti1jIu3ixVR9S8NF7/ow+iDD/E1/Jfxa3ERS4Ly78mnMSGkcGJwyGLD5NTlI/DsGQqPs/gb!l5wUNJkViYWdJe3+B1yHT5aT+A== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171814 On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT, Bill Leary wrote: >It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a >replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to >begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. >The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an >ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, >they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and >VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to >indicate which key had been pressed. They still sent the ascii value for normal keypresses. If you typed "yabba dabba doo", the characters "yabba dabba doo" were exactly what the terminal sent, one character at a time. It was arrow and function keys that didn't have an ascii representation that were sent as escape sequences. VT52 and terminals before didn't follow any standard. Every terminal did things it's own way; there was no standard escape sequence for how a "left arrow" key was transmitted, or what escape sequences were used for things like "delete to end of line", etc. ANSI changed that and defined a standard although there was room for differences. While ascii terminals were still dumb things, IBM had terminals that allowed the user to do some local editing, filling in fields and stuff like that and they'd send the final edited line or page when the user was ready. However, I know very little as I was about 15 when that was going on. My experience with terminals was VT52s, VT100s, VT102s, etc. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 36 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:23:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.102.109 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news2.nokia.com 1082467433 172.22.102.109 (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:23:53 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:23:53 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-stoc.telia.net!news-stoa.telia.net!telia.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!news2.nokia.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171815 In article , yogesh wrote: > in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. And elsewhere ... there have been "PC-class" systems that could use a "dumb terminal" as the console. At least 286 to 486. And yes, some of these could do so while running MS-DOS. Even today, I'd expect to find that dumb terminals, together with dumb-terminal emulators at least, are the most common type of local console on UNIX servers. > my questions is where was the processing for keyboard (or mouse or any > other input device) taking place?? did the dumb terminal have that > basic processing power or did the kb and mouse i/p signals were sent > to the mainframe(or main server) and again sent back to cpu in the > form of display singals?? Now, _that_ is a non-trivial question, but I'd expect that it can be answered "YES". There were several different implementations over the decades ... and, also, there have been terminals that could be configured to do it either way, in some cases for only parts of the keyboard too ... Also, it does sort of depend on your definition for things. In a way, the modern PC's CRT display and the keyboard and mouse is the _ultimate_ dumb terminal ... all the processing happens on the main CPU, right? ;-) (A slightly more serious question: Do you also count the graphical terminals with no general-purpose CPU in them? Like, X terminals? ) -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:41:42 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 61 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082468529 7708915 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171816 Bill Leary wrote: > I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us older folks > or, at least, don't have the long background many of us do. You seem to be > genuinely curious about how thing once were... so here goes. > > For the hardware classically referred to as "dumb terminals," there were no > mice. > > It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a > replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to > begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. > > The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an > ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, > they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and > VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to > indicate which key had been pressed. > > In the reverse, the computer sent the ASCII for a character or a movement, > and the terminal put it on the screen, or moved the cursor. Again, speaking > truly dumb (ADM3, *not* ADM3A) the "movement" was limited to (usually) > Carrage Return, Line Feed and, perhaps, Back. There was no cursor > addressing (the appended "A" in ADM3A was for addressing). Later models > would accept longer sequences, again thinking of VT52, VT100, but there were > certainly others, which would do more complex cursor operations or even far > more complex things, like select text pages or draw graphics or select > colors. That's a very good precis of the classic async character-oriented terminal, but ignores the divergent evolution of the block-mode, (usually) synchronous devices typified by IBM and the eternal 3270 family. I'm not sure how much processing was done in the 3274 controllers and how much in the 3270 itself (though I think the dice were stacked heavily in favour of the 3274 doing the lion's share of the work). Certainly by the later IBM terminals (the likes of the 3279) there was quite a lot of local intelligence. Anyway, regardless of comms protocol and connection method, the main difference is that on a block-mode terminal and controller the user fills in a complete screen/form which is send en bloc to the computer when the appropriate magic button is pressed. > My few recollections in dealing with "terminals" which had mice were all X > terminals which were computers in their own right and communicated in a not > particularly dumb way with the "mainframe." > They weren't necessarily X terminals - X is actually a pretty low-level, bureaucratic and generally horrid way of communicating with a larger computer. Things like the BLIT and its commercial nephew the AT&T 5620 took an interesting client/server approach - graphics software was downloaded to and executed in the terminal independently of the host computer... (and from that philosophy sprang the lightweight MGR window system from Bellcore, and also from Labs the Gnot, the prototypical plan9 terminal...) pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 43 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:55:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.102.109 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news2.nokia.com 1082469332 172.22.102.109 (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:55:32 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 16:55:32 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-stoc.telia.net!news-stoa.telia.net!telia.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!news2.nokia.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171818 TCS wrote: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT, Bill Leary wrote: >>The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an >>ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, >>they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and >>VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to >>indicate which key had been pressed. > it's own way; there was no standard escape sequence for how a "left arrow" > key was transmitted, or what escape sequences were used for things like > "delete to end of line", etc. > ANSI changed that and defined a standard although there was room for > differences. Indeed - "stty erase ^H" / "stty erase ^?" anyone? > While ascii terminals were still dumb things, IBM had terminals that allowed > the user to do some local editing, filling in fields and stuff like that and > they'd send the final edited line or page when the user was ready. And later, that kind of functionality became available on ASCII terminals too. I recently configured a (fairly recent) HP 70096 terminal to do something to that effect, and HP-UX 11i still understood most of it. (That model is one of those that can be configured to either interpret the cursor movement keys locally, or just send them over and let the host process them.) > However, > I know very little as I was about 15 when that was going on. My experience with > terminals was VT52s, VT100s, VT102s, etc. For some of us, this is still something of a current issue. Well, at least for _me_ ... -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 2004 10:58:13 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082483893 21219 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2004 17:58:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:58:13 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171865 > I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us older folks > or, at least, don't have the long background many of us do. You seem to be > genuinely curious about how thing once were... so here goes. rightly pointed out Bill.its very unfortunate and sad that modern computer study material only discusses about the current trends and future scope with very little emphasis on the history.so sometimes i really get curious about how the things started and how the people then,evolutionsed and revolutionized the computer world. listening it from the veterans like you is like listening the sweet grandma/pa(hope you won't mind)story telling...thanks for the inputs given to me..i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material is available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional touch.) cheers, yogesh ###### From: stanb45@dial.pipex.com (Stan Barr) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Organization: Metropolis Grafix Reply-To: stanb45@dial.pipex.com Message-ID: X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.5.2 UNIX) Date: 20 Apr 2004 18:08:22 GMT Lines: 19 NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2004 18:08:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 62-241-189-100.dsl.pipex.com X-Trace: 1082484502 news-text.dial.pipex.com 25232 62.241.189.100:13492 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!demorgan.zen.co.uk!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!195.129.110.21.MISMATCH!bnewsfeed00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsinpeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewspost00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171868 On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT, Bill Leary wrote: > >At this point the terminals (and earlier) they had microprocessors in them >and extensive programming was being done to handle the complexities. I >remember there was a particular model of graphics terminal put out by (I >think) HP in the early 70's that had two or three Z80's in it and there was >a group of hackers (classical use of the word, not criminal use) working out >ways to turn it into a graphics computer. I've got a Cifer terminal that has 2 Z80s and I think 126K RAM. Apparently it can run programs downloaded from the host, but I've not been able to find any info, or a keyboard :-( -- Cheers, Stan Barr stanb .at. dial .dot. pipex .dot. com (Remove any digits from the addresses when mailing me.) The future was never like this! ###### From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 2004 18:39:54 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 49 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082486394 24259 134.117.136.48 (20 Apr 2004 18:39:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2004 18:39:54 GMT X-Given-Sender: et472@smeagol.ncf.ca (Michael Black) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!et472 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171873 Stan Barr (stanb45@dial.pipex.com) writes: > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT, Bill Leary wrote: >> >>At this point the terminals (and earlier) they had microprocessors in them >>and extensive programming was being done to handle the complexities. I >>remember there was a particular model of graphics terminal put out by (I >>think) HP in the early 70's that had two or three Z80's in it and there was >>a group of hackers (classical use of the word, not criminal use) working out >>ways to turn it into a graphics computer. > > I've got a Cifer terminal that has 2 Z80s and I think 126K RAM. Apparently > it can run programs downloaded from the host, but I've not been able to > find any info, or a keyboard :-( > About 1995 I came across what I at first thought was a monitor, lying on the sidewalk waiting for the garbage truck. A closer look made it appear like a terminal, and for some reason I decided it was worth bringing home, along with the dot matrix printer sitting next to it. I was on foot, so at one of the frequent stops to rest, I took a closer look at the "monitor". It turned out to be an HP-150, and I immediately recognized that model as a computer that contained the monitor, and even more interesting, a touch-screen. I got it home, and plugged it in. It works perfectly. But, the drives were external, and the keyboard is not standard, and I sure saw none of those amongst the garbage. So it's completely useless, and it'snever been of enough interest to me to seek out the needed hardware. But, to keep to the thread, it actually has terminal software in ROM. I think it could be booted into terminal mode without floppy, so if it had come with the keyboard, at least it would have made a nice dumb (or maybe not even quite so dumb) terminal. In some ways, the term "dumb terminal" may be misunderstood. While originall, the terminals were all outright dumb, even when microprocessors came along, they were simply used to simplify the circuitry. Internally those may be "smart" but they functioned identically with any old dumb terminal. A non-dumb terminal would be something that has a greater level of control, or could be programmed in some way. An IBM compatible running a teletype like terminal program would still be a dumb terminal, but if it was running a more capable terminal emulator, it would have some "smarts". I thought the VT-series, or at least later models, would be considered if not quite "smart" at least more than a straight dumb terminal. Michael ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:56:30 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082487425 5390601 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171877 Michael Black wrote: > > I got it home, and plugged it in. It works perfectly. But, the drives > were external, and the keyboard is not standard, and I sure saw none > of those amongst the garbage. So it's completely useless, and it'snever > been of enough interest to me to seek out the needed hardware. > Keyboard's just HP-HIL isn't it? - and therefore fairly easy to find. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### From: shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 2004 12:35:38 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 170.121.15.35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082489739 28293 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2004 19:35:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:35:39 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171883 Pete Fenelon wrote in message news:... > That's a very good precis of the classic async character-oriented > terminal, but ignores the divergent evolution of the block-mode, > (usually) synchronous devices typified by IBM and the eternal 3270 > family. They do tie back in with terminals like the VT131 (a VT100 descendant that had block mode). The VT330 line has a "local editing mode" which is really what you and I call block mode. DEC also had the VT61/62, which were block-mode and based around the VT52. One of them used DDCMP according to the sales stuff (I never actually used one). Tim. ###### From: "Nico de Jong" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Lines: 23 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:04:36 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.142.193.202 X-Complaints-To: abuse@get2.net X-Trace: news.get2net.dk 1082491405 129.142.193.202 (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:03:25 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 22:03:25 CEST Organization: get2net Internet Kunde Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!feed.news.tiscali.de!uio.no!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.get2net.dk.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171886 "Mikko Nahkola" skrev i en meddelelse news:slrnc8a917.ili.mnahkola@localhost.localdomain... > In article , yogesh wrote: > > > in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. > > And elsewhere ... there have been "PC-class" systems that could use a > "dumb terminal" as the console. At least 286 to 486. And yes, some of > these could do so while running MS-DOS. > My first PC-type computer was a Sord M-343, running MS-DOS 2.something on a 8086. It supported a dumb terminal via a COM port. This was back in 1984. Nico --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.659 / Virus Database: 423 - Release Date: 15-04-2004 ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 04 12:04:45 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 38 Message-ID: <1933.606T2294T7245671@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-084.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171882 In article pete@fenelon.com (Pete Fenelon) writes: >I'm not sure how much processing was done in the 3274 controllers >and how much in the 3270 itself (though I think the dice were stacked >heavily in favour of the 3274 doing the lion's share of the work). >Certainly by the later IBM terminals (the likes of the 3279) there >was quite a lot of local intelligence. Some block-mode synchronous terminals (e.g. Univac's Uniscope 200) had all the logic within the terminal itself. They strictly had an RS-232 interface, though - a high-speed channel connection like the 2260 or 3270 was not an option. But for a company wanting to drop a single terminal into a remote office, this was all they needed. You didn't have to worry about the care and feeding of a separate controller box at the remote site - if all you needed was a single tube, you could get by with nothing more than terminal and a modem (typically a 201). If you wanted more than one terminal, a multiplexer the size of a couple of shoe boxes split the incoming line out to up to 16 terminals. The T-mux was just a dumb piece of hardware that sat in a closet and didn't need rebooting or downloads, but just worked as long as the power was on. >Anyway, regardless of comms protocol and connection method, the main >difference is that on a block-mode terminal and controller the user >fills in a complete screen/form which is send en bloc to the >computer when the appropriate magic button is pressed. ...and, in the case of Uniscope protocol, when the mainframe next polled the terminal (typically once a second, you knew when the system was up by the blinking of the POLL light). -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 2004 13:43:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 67 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 160.93.111.253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082493834 507 127.0.0.1 (20 Apr 2004 20:43:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 20:43:54 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171893 ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote > in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. > my questions is where was the processing for keyboard (or mouse or any > other input device) taking place?? did the dumb terminal have that > basic processing power or did the kb and mouse i/p signals were sent > to the mainframe(or main server) and again sent back to cpu in the > form of display singals?? First off, the term "dumb" is relative. Every computer terminal, even the earliest ones, had some control and automatic capability. The difference is in the matter of complexity and degree and functionality. In terms of definition, I would describe a "dumb" terminal as a piece of equipment whose sole function is to act as a computer terminal. You can't play games or calculate things on it while offline. When PCs became practical, a function that was added to them was terminal emulation. That is, the PC had software and hardware that let it act like a "dumb" terminal. A common emulation is for the IBM mainframe terminal, the 3270 family. In the early days of PCs, another terminal emulator was the software known as Procomm. There was even stuff that would even emulate a simple Teletype. To elaborate on what was said elsewhere: Computer "terminals" were originally Teletype machines (either the actual brand or similar). These were impact printers, very similar to a typewriter, except signals caused the typebar to move against the paper. IBM also made teletypewriter-like machines for its computers. The Teletype model ASR 33 could tabulate and form feed, or start and stop the paper tape punch and reader automatically (if options were installed). It also had a tiny "who are you" memory that gave the terminal/user's name automatically upon distant request. Generally, the Teletype sent and received one character at a time. Teletypes were noisy, slow, and chewed up a lot of paper. Displaying information electronically on a CRT (cathode ray tube) was faster and quieter. CRTs began to replace Teletypes. Since a CRT was controlled be electronics, it could be wired to do more things. Thus, "intelligence" began in terminals. In other words, not only characters would be displayed, but graphics and colors as well. Also, support for pointing devices was provided (before mice there were light pens). Note that a web browser program like Netscape is just another terminal emulator, although a fancy one. A trend I'd like to see is to marry the strength and dependability of the mainframe (ie CICS) with the user friendliness of GUI screens. CICS now supports an HTML or browser, not just 3270. ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 04 12:45:14 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: <2007.606T745T7654418@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-692.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171889 In article ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >> I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us >> older folks or, at least, don't have the long background many of >> us do. You seem to be genuinely curious about how thing once were... >> so here goes. > >rightly pointed out Bill.its very unfortunate and sad that modern >computer study material only discusses about the current trends and >future scope with very little emphasis on the history.so sometimes i >really get curious about how the things started and how the people >then,evolutionsed and revolutionized the computer world. You've come to the right place. Stick around and you'll hear all sorts of interesting stuff. Check out the a.f.c archives on Google for even more. One word of advice, though: try to pay a bit more attention to capitalization and punctuation. The better written your posts are, the less likely you are to arouse the ire of the more curmudgeonly of us here. (Who, me?) >listening it from the veterans like you is like listening the sweet >grandma/pa(hope you won't mind)story telling...thanks for the inputs >given to me..i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if >someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the >late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material >is available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional >touch.) Are you talking about how they worked and were built? After going through the full adjustment procedure on my 35RO, and actually following the flow of data through the mechanism, I was all the more fascinated that this purely electromechanical device could decode data coming in at 110 baud. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Organization: me From: Morten Reistad X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: mrr@via.reistad.priv.no (Morten Reistad) Message-ID: Lines: 77 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:00:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 193.217.0.253 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tele2.no X-Trace: juliett.dax.net 1082494802 193.217.0.253 (Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:00:02 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:00:02 MET DST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!dax.net!juliett.dax.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171894 In article , TCS wrote: >On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT, Bill Leary wrote: > >>It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a >>replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to >>begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. The teletype just wrote "typewriter-style", only moving in the sequence of text; i.e. right and down; only going left to start a new line. Terminals that were this dumb (and scrolling text off the screen) were called "glass tty's". It didn't take long before some intelligence moved into the terminals. >>The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an >>ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, >>they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and >>VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to >>indicate which key had been pressed. So, yes, the terminal almost always processed the actual hardware mechanics of detecting a keypress and generating a character code on some kind of serial line; possibly storing it internally until the line was ready. >They still sent the ascii value for normal keypresses. If you typed "yabba >dabba doo", the characters "yabba dabba doo" were exactly what the terminal >sent, one character at a time. It was arrow and function keys that didn't have >an ascii representation that were sent as escape sequences. VT52 was a forerunner of the "not-quite-as-dumb-as-glass ttys"; which could do cursor addressing, and could delete text, and possibly also do things like insert characters and lines into the display. The character ESC, 27 (octal 033) was used as a prefix to these instructions the terminal could understand. Cursor addressing on the VT52 is a four character sequence, ESC Y row col (or was it col row?) where row and col are encoded as ascii value 040 (32 decimail = space) plus the value represented. ESC Y ! ! thus placed the cursor one row and one column away from the top left corner of the screen . >VT52 and terminals before didn't follow any standard. Every terminal did things >it's own way; there was no standard escape sequence for how a "left arrow" >key was transmitted, or what escape sequences were used for things like >"delete to end of line", etc. > >ANSI changed that and defined a standard although there was room for >differences. >> See the files referred to in termcap and terminfo for the gory detail of all these terminals. Linux and most Unixen still support them. >While ascii terminals were still dumb things, IBM had terminals that allowed >the user to do some local editing, filling in fields and stuff like that and >they'd send the final edited line or page when the user was ready. However, >I know very little as I was about 15 when that was going on. My experience with >terminals was VT52s, VT100s, VT102s, etc. The block mode terminal wrote to a buffer, and "went away" to talk to the other end, transmitting data and waiting for a result. Half duplex, sort of like a VHF or a CB radio. All of this has remarkably good support still. xterm still runs a dialect of ansi close to vt102; and if you fire up kermit to talk to a serial port you will have a pretty good emulation of a vt100. (Vt102 is normally used in documentation, because that model fixed a number of annoying bugs in the actual vt100, and in the documentation of the vt100.) If you string a null-modem cable to another machine, and run klh10 there you will have a dialog via that serial port that almost exactly matches what was normal for this crowd around 1980. -- mrr ###### From: Frank McConnell Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 14:07:54 -0700 Organization: File under Psychedelia Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: daemonweed.reanimators.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: daemonweed.reanimators.org 1082495275 82421 192.168.1.2 (20 Apr 2004 21:07:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@reanimators.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2004 21:07:55 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!news.kjsl.com!news.reanimators.org!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171895 Pete Fenelon wrote: > Michael Black wrote: >> I got it home, and plugged it in. It works perfectly. But, the drives >> were external, and the keyboard is not standard, and I sure saw none >> of those amongst the garbage. So it's completely useless, and it'snever >> been of enough interest to me to seek out the needed hardware. > > Keyboard's just HP-HIL isn't it? - and therefore fairly easy to find. It depends what sort of HP150. The earlier ones with the 9" screen use a keyboard and interface that I think is specific to the HP150. The later ones with 12" screen (Touchscreen II, on which the touchscreen had thankfully become an extra-cost option) had an HP150-peculiar keyboard too, but the interface is HP-HIL. Anyway, yes, there is a terminal emulator in its firmware, and it can be configured to start up as a terminal even with a disk drive attached. It's approximately an HP2623 monochrome graphics terminal, or maybe a 2628A with the graphics option; if you have a classic HP3000 with the HPWORD word-processing system, it can download an image into the 150 to provide the user interface. -Frank McConnell ###### From: "David Wade" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:42:33 +0100 Lines: 95 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.168.51.233 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082500955 8350746 I 81.168.51.233 ([40235]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!81.168.51.233!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171917 "Pete Fenelon" wrote in message news:ma936c.lf4.ln@fenelon.com... > Bill Leary wrote: > > I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us older folks > > or, at least, don't have the long background many of us do. You seem to be > > genuinely curious about how thing once were... so here goes. > > > > For the hardware classically referred to as "dumb terminals," there were no > > mice. > > > > It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a > > replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to > > begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. > > > > The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an > > ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, > > they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and > > VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to > > indicate which key had been pressed. > > > > In the reverse, the computer sent the ASCII for a character or a movement, > > and the terminal put it on the screen, or moved the cursor. Again, speaking > > truly dumb (ADM3, *not* ADM3A) the "movement" was limited to (usually) > > Carrage Return, Line Feed and, perhaps, Back. There was no cursor > > addressing (the appended "A" in ADM3A was for addressing). Later models > > would accept longer sequences, again thinking of VT52, VT100, but there were > > certainly others, which would do more complex cursor operations or even far > > more complex things, like select text pages or draw graphics or select > > colors. > > That's a very good precis of the classic async character-oriented > terminal, but ignores the divergent evolution of the block-mode, > (usually) synchronous devices typified by IBM and the eternal 3270 > family. > > I'm not sure how much processing was done in the 3274 controllers and > how much in the 3270 itself (though I think the dice were stacked > heavily in favour of the 3274 doing the lion's share of the work). Note that the 3270 was a second generation screen. I think the first generation was 2250. On the 3270 the controller only held one screen of data, and any scrolling was done by the host. I think on the older screens, the controller held multiple pages and allowed you to scoll locally. I certainly remmember using screens that did this in 1972/73, but they were very old. http://www.ibm1130.net/functional/DisplayUnit.html also has some early display screen info > Certainly by the later IBM terminals (the likes of the 3279) there was > quite a lot of local intelligence. > > Anyway, regardless of comms protocol and connection method, the main > difference is that on a block-mode terminal and controller the user > fills in a complete screen/form which is send en bloc to the > computer when the appropriate magic button is pressed. > > > My few recollections in dealing with "terminals" which had mice were all X > > terminals which were computers in their own right and communicated in a not > > particularly dumb way with the "mainframe." > > > > They weren't necessarily X terminals - X is actually a pretty > low-level, bureaucratic and generally horrid way of communicating with > a larger computer. Things like the BLIT and its commercial nephew > the AT&T 5620 took an interesting client/server approach - graphics > software was downloaded to and executed in the terminal independently > of the host computer... (and from that philosophy sprang the > lightweight MGR window system from Bellcore, and also from Labs the Gnot, > the prototypical plan9 terminal...) > > pete > -- > pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### From: rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:43:38 -0500 Organization: FIELDATA FORTRAN ENTHUSIASTS CLUB Reply-To: rsteiner@visi.com Message-ID: References: Supersedes: X-Newsreader: Yarn for OS/2 v0.92 X-Machine-Specs: Micron PPro/200 w/192MB RAM + OS/2 Warp 4 FP 15 X-Stuff-Running: There are 63 Processes with 194 Threads. X-System-Uptime: 3d 14h 26m 46s 609ms X-Armor-Class-From-Above: -17 User-Agent: VSoup v1.2.9.48Beta [OS/2] Lines: 89 NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2004 17:44:36 CDT NNTP-Posting-Host: 9c0d5e1a.authen.newsreader.visi.com X-Trace: DXC=KnIKUHONLW?65=liQin the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. Some so-called "dumb" terminals weren't so dumb. :-) >my questions is where was the processing for keyboard (or mouse or any >other input device) taking place?? On the Unisys UTS terminals I've used (the type used to connect to the Unisys 1100-series, 2200-series, and Clearpath IX mainframes), things such as text insertion/deletion, line insertion/deletion, basic cursor movement, and even field justification were all handled locally by the terminal. Markers called FCCs were used to delineate special regions on the UTS screen such as protected and inverse-protected fields, which were also used to control data input and cursor movement (the terminal would not permit input in those areas, and would actively move the cursor to the start of the next unprotected field if a user were to try to place it in a protected field). That was very useful for defining interactive forms on the screen, and it was used in a way similar to HTML forms. One generally used TAB or SHIFT-TAB to move between input fields locally. Data did not get sent to the mainframe (at least in general) unless the Transmit key was pushed, or unless one of the special keys was pushed (the MSG key, function keys, etc). Even when Transmit was hit, the terminal could be smart enough to only send those fields which had changed on the screen (it varied depending on the specific terminal settings in use on that terminal). It would also only send a portion of the screen if an SOE (Start Of Entry) character was present on the screen, sending only that portion from the SOE position+1 to the end (lower right) of the logical screen. In that way, it was possible (even on the relatively "primitive" UTS transaction environment like the one I worked in at NWA) to effectively provide split screens. One could send a transaction to the host (say TEST1) from the home position (upper left) and receive the TEST1 display, then move down the screen and send TEST2. If the TEST2 program was written to detect the SOE position (row/column) it could then place its own display at or below the place where the SOE was present, thus leaving the TEST1 display intact. Assuming an implicit SOE at the home position and using ">" to be the SOE character, this might look like the following: +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ |TEST1 | |TEST1 | |TEST1 | |TEST1 | | | |TEST1 Display | |TEST1 Display | |TEST1 Display | | | |goes here... | |goes here | |goes here | | | | | |>TEST2 | |>TEST2 | | | | | | | |TEST2 Display | | | | | | | |goes here and | | | | | | | |won't overwrite | +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ Folks used that feature in WorldFlight a lot -- you could bring up a FL display to show the stations for a given flight, and then do several WX transactions to view weather at various stations without overwriting the initial FLD display. That also how the text editor I maintained (UEDIT) handled operations inside the actual text work area -- it detected the row/column where the user placed an SOE and assumed that the command in question would take effect in the text area at the SOE location. That allowed for somewhat advanced operations like defining rectangular regions for copy/cut and paste or case conversion operations. >did the dumb terminal have that basic processing power or did the kb >and mouse i/p signals were sent to the mainframe(or main server) and >again sent back to cpu in the form of display singals?? UTS terminals were block-mode devices. They did not communicate with the host at every keystroke like VT100 terminals and derivatives to. -- -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment. See web site above for resume/CV and background. ###### From: pechter@shell.monmouth.com (Bill/Carolyn Pechter) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 2004 18:59:32 -0400 Organization: Lakewood MicroSystems Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: shell.monmouth.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.monmouth.com!shell.monmouth.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171923 In article , Tim Shoppa wrote: >DEC also had the VT61/62, which were block-mode and based around >the VT52. One of them used DDCMP according to the sales stuff (I never >actually used one). > >Tim. They were fairly rare in the field when I was at DEC. The PDT150 employee purchase had VT61/62's as the terminals if you went for the cheaper option than the ones with the VT100's. The VT62's had reverse video and DDCMP block mode IIRC. I heard the block mode was rigged for TRAX (which, supposedly morphed into RSX11M+)... Trax was supposedly designed to do transaction processing on PDP11/70's. Anyone know anything about it? Bill -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Bill and/or Carolyn Pechter | pechter@shell.monmouth.com | | Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a villain in | | a James Bond movie -- Dennis Miller | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: From: Bernd Felsche User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:58:06 +0800 Message-ID: Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.144.24 X-Trace: 1082505698 freenews.iinet.net.au 16580 203.59.144.24 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!HSNX.atgi.net!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!freenews.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171937 ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >> I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us older folks >> or, at least, don't have the long background many of us do. You seem to be >> genuinely curious about how thing once were... so here goes. >rightly pointed out Bill.its very unfortunate and sad that modern >computer study material only discusses about the current trends and >future scope with very little emphasis on the history.so sometimes i >really get curious about how the things started and how the people >then,evolutionsed and revolutionized the computer world. >listening it from the veterans like you is like listening the sweet >grandma/pa(hope you won't mind)story telling...thanks for the inputs >given to me..i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if >someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the >late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material is >available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional >touch.) I can't be bothered with reading the above. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 19:58:12 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:58:12 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 20 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-Sk0E8rnCd9QHi62ahOFwbmtForjqdYSexthClKjw8jpu1eVwtDGgrtGq62/CQbaP2+dC25ylAHcH76l!aTBqE4ObKLZ5iFK40gjWO1zIWyOUW9p8qkEJlEQr+tCo5O0FZVZfLUeHHv1FjyaRfLfvQF24rxw/!YRg= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171944 "Bill/Carolyn Pechter" wrote in message news:c64a0k$see$1@shell.monmouth.com... > I heard the block mode was rigged for TRAX (which, supposedly morphed > into RSX11M+)... Trax was supposedly designed to do transaction > processing on PDP11/70's. > I remember the DEC sales guy coming round with lots of glossy brochures extolling the miracle of Trax, but for some odd reason technical details were never forthcoming and I never encountered anyone who actually installed or used it. Most 11/70s at the time ran RSTS, and DEC would do their best to steer you away from RSX if that's what you wanted instead (fought some of those battles personally). A year or so later all mention of Trax quietly disappeared, as if it had never existed. From what I could tell it was basically 11M with chrome bumpers, a two tone paint job and racing stripe. Lots of sizzle, no additional steak. RSX-11M preceded Trax by several years. Jack Peacock ###### From: Elliott Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:41:58 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-042.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cyclone.bc.net!HSNX.atgi.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171950 On 20 Apr 2004 13:43:54 -0700, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Jeff nor Lisa) arranged a number of random electrons thusly: >That is, the PC had software and hardware >that let it act like a "dumb" terminal. A common emulation is >for the IBM mainframe terminal, the 3270 family. One of the joys of the various emulations was that their authors usually used the prior generation of emulator as the design model upon which to base their work. By the time you got four or five generations down, varous baroque features appeared that were usually the result of the gen N programmer not understanding that a particular idiocy in gen N-1 was the gen N-1's programmer's attempt to cirucmvent some lunacy in his designated hardware. "But it worked with the previous version...." And then some intrepid greybeard would be shipped out to fix the problem with his tattered copy of a 1972 manual for the ORIGINAL hardware in question hiding in the bottom of his briefcase, and would find that the baroques had baroquen what the mainframe (which was also several genrations of emulation removed from the original hardware) was expecting. ###### From: Elliott Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 18:47:42 -0700 Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-186.newsdawg.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 2.0/32.652 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed3.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!enews3 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171951 On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:42:33 +0100, "David Wade" arranged a number of random electrons thusly: >Note that the 3270 was a second generation screen. I think the first >generation was 2250. The first generation was the 2260. Very, very dumb -- all of the logic was in the controller (approx the size of a SubZero refrigerator). The second generation 3270 had some local smarts: both the keyboard AND the display EACH had a local microprocessor (8085 IIRC). The 2260 attached to its controller using up to 200' of 92 ohm coax. The 3270 used a more sophisticated encoding on the cable and could run on up to 2000' of cable. This allowed the controller to live in the computer room for most business campuses and attach to a mainframe channel, where it could be interrupt driven. Synchronous polling protocols (BSC, SDLC) were designed around the characteristics of the 2400/4800 bps modems with 100 ms turnaround times that were used with remote versions of the controller. Race conditions and timing problems were common nightmares for comms programmers of that era. Protocol stack problems? What's a protocol, and what's a stack? :-) The 2250 was IBM's first generation graphics display device -- it could generate vectors: you downloaded (x,y,x',y') and display attributes and the display put them up on a 21" monochrome CRT. The ancestral CAD programs like CATIA were developed for these beasts -- an early CAD system used the entire power of a mainframe to run three or four 2250 displays. ###### From: dooleys@snowy.net.au (dooley) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 20 Apr 2004 20:06:12 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: <1ca82fc6.0404201906.5c420992@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.102.206.62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082516773 26241 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2004 03:06:13 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:06:13 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171959 shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) wrote in message news:... > Pete Fenelon wrote in message news:... > > That's a very good precis of the classic async character-oriented > > terminal, but ignores the divergent evolution of the block-mode, > > (usually) synchronous devices typified by IBM and the eternal 3270 > > family. > > They do tie back in with terminals like the VT131 (a VT100 descendant > that had block mode). The VT131 couldn't really be described as a "dumb" terminal as it had a Z80 chip inside, and so more expensive than a VT100 equivalent. They were never that popular, but a VAX running a block mode application could support at least twice the number of users as a similar machine running in character mode. Phil ###### X-Abuse-Report: abuse@teranews.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:09:58 GMT Lines: 69 From: JoeCommodore User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021216 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.teranews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171960 I remeber the ads of the early CP/M microcomputers and such boasting an "integrated terminal" translation: it had video and keyboard suport! No more looking for surplus ASR33s to get beyond the switchpanel. :-) Some early terminals were TTY logic and no microprocessor. So much has changed in the last 25 years... you young whippersnapers! ;-) Bill Leary wrote: > "yogesh" wrote in message > news:f88a27e4.0404200441.2209e7b0@posting.google.com... > >>in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. >>my questions is where was the processing for keyboard (or mouse or any >>other input device) taking place?? did the dumb terminal have that >>basic processing power or did the kb and mouse i/p signals were sent >>to the mainframe(or main server) and again sent back to cpu in the >>form of display singals?? > > > I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us older folks > or, at least, don't have the long background many of us do. You seem to be > genuinely curious about how thing once were... so here goes. > > For the hardware classically referred to as "dumb terminals," there were no > mice. > > It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a > replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to > begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. > > The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an > ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, > they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and > VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to > indicate which key had been pressed. > > In the reverse, the computer sent the ASCII for a character or a movement, > and the terminal put it on the screen, or moved the cursor. Again, speaking > truly dumb (ADM3, *not* ADM3A) the "movement" was limited to (usually) > Carrage Return, Line Feed and, perhaps, Back. There was no cursor > addressing (the appended "A" in ADM3A was for addressing). Later models > would accept longer sequences, again thinking of VT52, VT100, but there were > certainly others, which would do more complex cursor operations or even far > more complex things, like select text pages or draw graphics or select > colors. > > At this point the terminals (and earlier) they had microprocessors in them > and extensive programming was being done to handle the complexities. I > remember there was a particular model of graphics terminal put out by (I > think) HP in the early 70's that had two or three Z80's in it and there was > a group of hackers (classical use of the word, not criminal use) working out > ways to turn it into a graphics computer. > > My few recollections in dealing with "terminals" which had mice were all X > terminals which were computers in their own right and communicated in a not > particularly dumb way with the "mainframe." > > - Bill > > -- 01000011 01001100 01000001 01010011 01010011 01001001 01000011 Larry Anderson - Sysop of Silicon Realms BBS (209) 754-1363 300-14.4k bps Set your 8-bit rigs to sail for http://www.portcommodore.com/ 01010001 01010101 01000001 01001100 01001001 01010100 01011001 ###### From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 21 Apr 2004 03:46:59 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 81 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082519219 29820 134.117.136.48 (21 Apr 2004 03:46:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Apr 2004 03:46:59 GMT X-Given-Sender: et472@smeagol.ncf.ca (Michael Black) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!et472 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171961 JoeCommodore (larry@portcommodore.com) writes: > I remeber the ads of the early CP/M microcomputers and such boasting an > "integrated terminal" translation: it had video and keyboard suport! No > more looking for surplus ASR33s to get beyond the switchpanel. :-) > Some early terminals were TTY logic and no microprocessor. > > So much has changed in the last 25 years... you young whippersnapers! ;-) > > Not that I have much use for a standalone terminal at this point, but even after I moved to a better Mac, I kept my Mac Plus around because it does make a nice compact terminal. When I got a Mac Classic, I scrapped the Plus. Now that I scored a Mac Powerbook (not a recent one, but a lot more powerful than the Classic), I guess I can get rid of the Classic, since that makes an even better terminal. Michael > Bill Leary wrote: >> "yogesh" wrote in message >> news:f88a27e4.0404200441.2209e7b0@posting.google.com... >> >>>in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. >>>my questions is where was the processing for keyboard (or mouse or any >>>other input device) taking place?? did the dumb terminal have that >>>basic processing power or did the kb and mouse i/p signals were sent >>>to the mainframe(or main server) and again sent back to cpu in the >>>form of display singals?? >> >> >> I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us older folks >> or, at least, don't have the long background many of us do. You seem to be >> genuinely curious about how thing once were... so here goes. >> >> For the hardware classically referred to as "dumb terminals," there were no >> mice. >> >> It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a >> replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to >> begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. >> >> The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an >> ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, >> they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and >> VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to >> indicate which key had been pressed. >> >> In the reverse, the computer sent the ASCII for a character or a movement, >> and the terminal put it on the screen, or moved the cursor. Again, speaking >> truly dumb (ADM3, *not* ADM3A) the "movement" was limited to (usually) >> Carrage Return, Line Feed and, perhaps, Back. There was no cursor >> addressing (the appended "A" in ADM3A was for addressing). Later models >> would accept longer sequences, again thinking of VT52, VT100, but there were >> certainly others, which would do more complex cursor operations or even far >> more complex things, like select text pages or draw graphics or select >> colors. >> >> At this point the terminals (and earlier) they had microprocessors in them >> and extensive programming was being done to handle the complexities. I >> remember there was a particular model of graphics terminal put out by (I >> think) HP in the early 70's that had two or three Z80's in it and there was >> a group of hackers (classical use of the word, not criminal use) working out >> ways to turn it into a graphics computer. >> >> My few recollections in dealing with "terminals" which had mice were all X >> terminals which were computers in their own right and communicated in a not >> particularly dumb way with the "mainframe." >> >> - Bill >> >> > > > -- > 01000011 01001100 01000001 01010011 01010011 01001001 01000011 > Larry Anderson - Sysop of Silicon Realms BBS (209) 754-1363 300-14.4k bps > Set your 8-bit rigs to sail for http://www.portcommodore.com/ > 01010001 01010101 01000001 01001100 01001001 01010100 01011001 > ###### Message-ID: <40861CBC.3AD2F2F8@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:07:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.76.141.84 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1082531252 12.76.141.84 (Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:07:32 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 07:07:32 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:171975 JoeCommodore wrote: > > I remeber the ads of the early CP/M microcomputers and such > boasting an "integrated terminal" translation: it had video and > keyboard suport! No more looking for surplus ASR33s to get > beyond the switchpanel. :-) Some early terminals were TTY logic > and no microprocessor. We had one built around TTL and PMOS shift registers, with multiple power supplies and peculiar clocks. The next version used a 6502. -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail? ###### From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 21 Apr 2004 15:35:29 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <40861CBC.3AD2F2F8@yahoo.com> Reply-To: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082561729 7636 134.117.136.48 (21 Apr 2004 15:35:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Apr 2004 15:35:29 GMT X-Given-Sender: et472@smeagol.ncf.ca (Michael Black) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!news.m-online.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!et472 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172041 CBFalconer (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) writes: > JoeCommodore wrote: >> >> I remeber the ads of the early CP/M microcomputers and such >> boasting an "integrated terminal" translation: it had video and >> keyboard suport! No more looking for surplus ASR33s to get >> beyond the switchpanel. :-) Some early terminals were TTY logic >> and no microprocessor. > > We had one built around TTL and PMOS shift registers, with > multiple power supplies and peculiar clocks. The next version > used a 6502. > And apparently many people built Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter, out of TTL and maybe shift registers for memory (I've never seen the original schematic), even though the original had no way of interfacing to something else, and there wasn't much to interface to at the time. We're talking 1974 or maybe even 1973. How dumb can those be? And then when home computers came along, people had to come up with some often cumbersome schemes to control those things from computers. Michael ###### Message-ID: <40869E36.688F3E41@earthlink.net> From: jchausler X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:15:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.178.89.195 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1082564122 63.178.89.195 (Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:15:22 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:15:22 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!2fb3b9aa!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172049 yogesh wrote: > .i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if > someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the > late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material is > available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional > touch.) The feel of the keyboard, the sounds of the mechanism (many different sounds, the printer, the tape reader, the tape punch and the keyboard distributor, all unique), the smell of hot oil, all at 3 AM in the morning when you've got a project due the next day. Ah yes, the memories... As I still have a couple of semi working 33's, I can still experience this though I don't do it at 3 AM in the morning any more...It's been a long time since I saw a 35. I could have had several 35KSRs about half a dozen years ago but they were in Kansas City and I wasn't. I've got no docs for them either but I do have docs for the 33's. Chris AN GETTO$;DUMP;RUN,ALGOL,TAPE $$ ###### From: "David Wade" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:03:28 +0100 Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: <40861CBC.3AD2F2F8@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.168.51.233 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082567014 8927515 I 81.168.51.233 ([40235]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!81.168.51.233!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172054 "Michael Black" wrote in message news:c664c1$7ek$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > CBFalconer (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) writes: > > JoeCommodore wrote: > >> > >> I remeber the ads of the early CP/M microcomputers and such > >> boasting an "integrated terminal" translation: it had video and > >> keyboard suport! No more looking for surplus ASR33s to get > >> beyond the switchpanel. :-) Some early terminals were TTY logic > >> and no microprocessor. > > > > We had one built around TTL and PMOS shift registers, with > > multiple power supplies and peculiar clocks. The next version > > used a 6502. > > > And apparently many people built Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter, out > of TTL and maybe shift registers for memory (I've never seen the original > schematic), http://www.swtpc.com/mholley/RadioElectronics/TV_Typewriter.htm confirms > even though the original had no way of interfacing to something > else, and there wasn't much to interface to at the time. We're talking 1974 > or maybe even 1973. How dumb can those be? > > And then when home computers came along, people had to come up with > some often cumbersome schemes to control those things from computers. > > Michael > ###### From: shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 21 Apr 2004 10:12:47 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <1ca82fc6.0404201906.5c420992@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 170.121.15.35 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082567568 18309 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2004 17:12:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news2.euro.net!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172055 dooleys@snowy.net.au (dooley) wrote in message news:<1ca82fc6.0404201906.5c420992@posting.google.com>... > shoppa@trailing-edge.com (Tim Shoppa) wrote in message news:... > > Pete Fenelon wrote in message news:... > > > That's a very good precis of the classic async character-oriented > > > terminal, but ignores the divergent evolution of the block-mode, > > > (usually) synchronous devices typified by IBM and the eternal 3270 > > > family. > > > > They do tie back in with terminals like the VT131 (a VT100 descendant > > that had block mode). > The VT131 couldn't really be described as a "dumb" terminal as it > had a Z80 chip inside, and so more expensive than a VT100 equivalent. Actually, "dumb" might cover everything from an electromechanical teletype with nothing but a solenoid powered by an external 60mA current loop to a modern Pentium IV system running an embedded web browser and connecting to the world via gigabit ethernet. My personal usage agrees with yours, but to some people anything that's *not* a generic PC that you have to load software onto is "dumb terminal". I believe that "dumb" is a virtue most of the time. And ISTR the VT131 using an 8085, not a Z80... not that there's anything fundamental about that. Tim. ###### From: krw Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 02:08:04 -0400 Message-ID: References: X-Newsreader: MicroPlanet Gravity v2.60 NNTP-Posting-Host: bi-02pt1.bluebird.ibm.com X-Trace: 21 Apr 2004 18:04:46 GMT, bi-02pt1.bluebird.ibm.com Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services Lines: 51 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!ash.uu.net!newsfeed2.us.prserv.net!prserv.net!news3.prserv.net!bi-02pt1.bluebird.ibm.com Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172061 In article , dontspamesfrank@cruzio.com says... > On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:42:33 +0100, "David Wade" > arranged a number of random electrons thusly: > > >Note that the 3270 was a second generation screen. I think the first > >generation was 2250. > > The first generation was the 2260. Very, very dumb -- all of the logic > was in the controller (approx the size of a SubZero refrigerator). The > second generation 3270 had some local smarts: both the keyboard AND > the display EACH had a local microprocessor (8085 IIRC). I think the 327x controllers had UC0 or UC.5 controllers. IBM wasn't buying Intel stuff then (but did use some 6800s internally). > The 2260 attached to its controller using up to 200' of 92 ohm coax. > The 3270 used a more sophisticated encoding on the cable and could run > on up to 2000' of cable. There were various options (but I can't remember all the numbers). Some control units were modem connected, some displays were "stand- alone" (had the "control unit" built in). > This allowed the controller to live in the > computer room for most business campuses and attach to a mainframe > channel, where it could be interrupt driven. Synchronous polling > protocols (BSC, SDLC) were designed around the characteristics of the > 2400/4800 bps modems with 100 ms turnaround times that were used with > remote versions of the controller. Race conditions and timing problems > were common nightmares for comms programmers of that era. Protocol > stack problems? What's a protocol, and what's a stack? :-) In the mid-late '70s our 3270s were about five miles from the processor complex and connected via 9600bps (1200baud) modems on a dedicated line. By the late '70s each office had 3270s with graphics attachments (Tektronix storage tubes), all modem attached. > The 2250 was IBM's first generation graphics display device -- it > could generate vectors: you downloaded (x,y,x',y') and display > attributes and the display put them up on a 21" monochrome CRT. The > ancestral CAD programs like CATIA were developed for these beasts -- > an early CAD system used the entire power of a mainframe to run three > or four 2250 displays. The graphic-entry guys used these. IIRC they were channel attached to 3158s. I never used 'em. The 3270GA was enough for my use until the PC came about. -- Keith ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: From: Thierry Emery MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:04:07 +0200 Message-ID: Organization: Home, France User-Agent: T-gnus/6.16.6 (based on Gnus v5.10.6) SEMI/1.14.6 (Maruoka) FLIM/1.14.6 (Marutamachi) APEL/10.6 Emacs/21.3 (i686-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/5.0 (SAKAKI) Cancel-Lock: sha1:K3FkbOIR5wV2pPznfsl1hhsruYg= Lines: 32 NNTP-Posting-Date: 21 Apr 2004 21:04:40 MEST NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.255.69.65 X-Trace: 1082574280 news5-e.free.fr 19474 82.255.69.65:33146 X-Complaints-To: abuse@proxad.net Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!uio.no!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!proxad.net!feeder2-1.proxad.net!news5-e.free.fr!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172066 Morten Reistad writes: > The teletype just wrote "typewriter-style", only moving in the sequence > of text; i.e. right and down; only going left to start a new line. It seems to me that the teletype on the CII Mitra 15 we had in high school (in the seventies) could also go left while staying on the same line, in response to a , which could be used for "bold" printing. Moreover, i think it could advance by one line while staying on the same column in response to a , and a new line starting left needed . Google has found a photograph of such a machine in another school : http://50ans.imag.fr/images/galerie/Source/19.jpg Ours did not have the extra rack which is left of this Mitra 15, but it had a floppy disk drive (8.2 inch), a hard disk (some hundred KB), and around eight terminals. On the left side of the teletype you can see a paper ribbon reader / puncher, which was used for booting (after entering the needed code on the 16 switches on the front panel and turning its key to the required position), as well as for writing and reading data or programs ... Our programs were written in LSE "Langage Symbolique d'Enseignement" ("symbolic language for teaching"), however i learned today (in http://www.epi.asso.fr/revue/54/b54p216.htm ) that the language was originally named LSD "Langage Symbolique Didactique", but the French National Education requested that its name be changed before it was used in schools :-) Thierry -- thierry emery free fr ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 14:25:28 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <40861CBC.3AD2F2F8@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:25:28 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 31 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-PoKklb6YgkNt9nhj8RjFsJMrxHXd5P4S8HmDz3y11EiYYm9e/xqMblfcx0sp0UsHR7v6g1BlDf+TMOI!3bQcyGfxFdr73JWL8LRS6CpQ7h4N+fmx35QjuvqoJWtbeSufbLE3BoVZqDSx3SdvfQUBpsHiwOcc!ks4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed3.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172068 "Michael Black" wrote in message news:c664c1$7ek$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > And apparently many people built Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter, out > of TTL and maybe shift registers for memory (I've never seen the original > schematic), even though the original had no way of interfacing to something > else, and there wasn't much to interface to at the time. We're talking 1974 > or maybe even 1973. How dumb can those be? > The TV Typewriter by itself was very limited (never used one myself) but what did come from it was the circuitry and concept that was adapted to the S-100 bus: a 64x16 character video display driving a monitor or TV, with 1KB dual-ported RAM accessible from the bus. One of the very first add-on cards was the Processor Technology VDM-1 card with those same specs. That gave the toy computer a real workable display that was also cheap. Before CP/M came out I used the VDM and PT's ROM resident ALS-8 assembler development system (editor/assembler/debugger) to build some early 8080 based embedded controllers. Development costs for the instruments we built were slashed dramatically. Everyone in the lab came by to see it in action, except for the computer support people. If it didn't have 60 bits and eat punch cards it wasn't a computer, which turned out to be a beneficial attitude for the engineering section. 16 lines and 64 characters may not seem like much but the display was FAST, very fast updating compared to a regular dumb terminal. Page up and page down in edit mode were essentially instantaneous. I hated going back to TECO after that. Jack Peacock ###### From: pmc@finger-rock.com (Patrick Connors) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 21 Apr 2004 15:44:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 107 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.17.16.253 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082587447 9336 127.0.0.1 (21 Apr 2004 22:44:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 22:44:07 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172082 rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) wrote in message news:... > Here in alt.folklore.computers, > ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) spake unto us, saying: > > >in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. > > Some so-called "dumb" terminals weren't so dumb. :-) > > >my questions is where was the processing for keyboard (or mouse or any > >other input device) taking place?? > > On the Unisys UTS terminals I've used (the type used to connect to the > Unisys 1100-series, 2200-series, and Clearpath IX mainframes), things > such as text insertion/deletion, line insertion/deletion, basic cursor > movement, and even field justification were all handled locally by the > terminal. > > Markers called FCCs were used to delineate special regions on the UTS > screen such as protected and inverse-protected fields, which were also > used to control data input and cursor movement (the terminal would not > permit input in those areas, and would actively move the cursor to the > start of the next unprotected field if a user were to try to place it > in a protected field). > > That was very useful for defining interactive forms on the screen, and > it was used in a way similar to HTML forms. One generally used TAB or > SHIFT-TAB to move between input fields locally. > > Data did not get sent to the mainframe (at least in general) unless the > Transmit key was pushed, or unless one of the special keys was pushed > (the MSG key, function keys, etc). > > Even when Transmit was hit, the terminal could be smart enough to only > send those fields which had changed on the screen (it varied depending > on the specific terminal settings in use on that terminal). > > It would also only send a portion of the screen if an SOE (Start Of > Entry) character was present on the screen, sending only that portion > from the SOE position+1 to the end (lower right) of the logical screen. > > In that way, it was possible (even on the relatively "primitive" UTS > transaction environment like the one I worked in at NWA) to effectively > provide split screens. One could send a transaction to the host (say > TEST1) from the home position (upper left) and receive the TEST1 > display, then move down the screen and send TEST2. > > If the TEST2 program was written to detect the SOE position (row/column) > it could then place its own display at or below the place where the SOE > was present, thus leaving the TEST1 display intact. > > Assuming an implicit SOE at the home position and using ">" to be the > SOE character, this might look like the following: > > +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ > |TEST1 | |TEST1 | |TEST1 | |TEST1 | > | | |TEST1 Display | |TEST1 Display | |TEST1 Display | > | | |goes here... | |goes here | |goes here | > | | | | |>TEST2 | |>TEST2 | > | | | | | | |TEST2 Display | > | | | | | | |goes here and | > | | | | | | |won't overwrite | > +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ +----------------+ > > Folks used that feature in WorldFlight a lot -- you could bring up a FL > display to show the stations for a given flight, and then do several WX > transactions to view weather at various stations without overwriting the > initial FLD display. > > That also how the text editor I maintained (UEDIT) handled operations > inside the actual text work area -- it detected the row/column where > the user placed an SOE and assumed that the command in question would > take effect in the text area at the SOE location. > > That allowed for somewhat advanced operations like defining rectangular > regions for copy/cut and paste or case conversion operations. > > >did the dumb terminal have that basic processing power or did the kb > >and mouse i/p signals were sent to the mainframe(or main server) and > >again sent back to cpu in the form of display singals?? > > UTS terminals were block-mode devices. They did not communicate with > the host at every keystroke like VT100 terminals and derivatives to. Ahh memories. My first job involved programming for UTS terminals. In COBOL. On Univac 1100s. 5 bytes per FCC. I don't remember the codes but I still remember typing all of those lines and lines of 10 FILLER PIC 9 VALUE (whatever) 10 FILLER PIC 9 VALUE (whatever) 10 FILLER PIC 9 VALUE (whatever) 10 FILLER PIC 9 VALUE (whatever) 10 FILLER PIC 9 VALUE (whatever) for each FCC. This was before cut and paste. I used to know most of the FCC codes by heart. I worked on (among other things) a program to send text messages between terminals. Forgot to take out some test code once, which is the first time I personally crashed an 1100. Spectacular, but it ate up all of the CPU. (Not the last time by far - at a later job I was one of the operators in a big multi-1100 shop and it was sometimes my job to crash 'em.) - Patrick (should I type $! now?) Connors ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 04 11:52:11 GMT Lines: 39 Message-ID: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=5Se:n4g8O[LaB:;NebNN=I0R]m=BkYWIG:6bU3OT9S9JlQf_bLjn4oGI3O8BVgV^PIGIJ778K3GFL>C5OJ=2C6QI X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172134 In article , TCS wrote: >On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT, Bill Leary wrote: > >>It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a >>replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to >>begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. > >>The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an >>ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, >>they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and >>VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes to >>indicate which key had been pressed. > >They still sent the ascii value for normal keypresses. If you typed "yabba >dabba doo", the characters "yabba dabba doo" were exactly what the terminal >sent, one character at a time. It was arrow and function keys that didn't have >an ascii representation that were sent as escape sequences. > >VT52 and terminals before didn't follow any standard. They sure did have a standard. The display method (how the TTY got to a point on the screen was different for each piece of hardware. See the tables in SYSDPY.MAC for the parameters. But any interaction with the computer was based on a standard. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Thu, 22 Apr 04 12:00:28 GMT Lines: 14 Message-ID: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=4U:=6O2?J_UBSY?2J=C5OJ=2C6QY X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!diablo.voicenet.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172135 In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: > ..i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if >someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the >late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material is >available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional >touch.) Go visit one. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:59:56 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: TCS Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:59:56 -0500 Lines: 40 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.184.183 X-Trace: sv3-72nah3LGIBXIEbKBqf+XHlbpokr3zw/MLaRuUlWR0xG7P6YaLnEuqmjWk+hvQDITT9GKnY+bdvSEs4S!vCC72rx33b7nT5E1liUAKI119ffLEAtRrqpI9wJF2s2jZRbL2dTY6JW+9E8fTc0Wp6PpBv4ZYI5v!i/secXic3o6/Mt+UNVf21Xnf8w== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news2.euro.net!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172140 On Thu, 22 Apr 04 11:52:11 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >In article >, > TCS wrote: >>On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:03:03 GMT, Bill Leary wrote: >> >>>It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up >as a >>>replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to >>>begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. >> >>>The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say >an >>>ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. Later, as they got slightly brighter, >>>they'd sometimes send more than one code for a key stroke. The VT52 and >>>VT100's, for example, might send ESC followed by one or more other codes >to >>>indicate which key had been pressed. >> >>They still sent the ascii value for normal keypresses. If you typed >"yabba >>dabba doo", the characters "yabba dabba doo" were exactly what the >terminal >>sent, one character at a time. It was arrow and function keys that didn't >have >>an ascii representation that were sent as escape sequences. >> >>VT52 and terminals before didn't follow any standard. >They sure did have a standard. The display method (how >the TTY got to a point on the screen was different for >each piece of hardware. See the tables in SYSDPY.MAC for >the parameters. But any interaction with the computer >was based on a standard. The only standard was BS moved one character to the left, CR to the beginning of the line and LF to the next line. All other operations were done differently by every manufacturer. Compare a VT52 to an ADM3A for example. ###### From: "Gary A. Gorgen" Organization: Tunxis Design Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <40861CBC.3AD2F2F8@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 31 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.126.247 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s03 1082646285 24.7.126.247 (Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:04:45 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:04:45 GMT Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:04:45 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s03.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172141 Michael Black wrote: < snip > > > And apparently many people built Don Lancaster's TV Typewriter, out > of TTL and maybe shift registers for memory (I've never seen the original > schematic), even though the original had no way of interfacing to something > else, and there wasn't much to interface to at the time. We're talking 1974 > or maybe even 1973. How dumb can those be? > > And then when home computers came along, people had to come up with > some often cumbersome schemes to control those things from computers. > In 1969 a company demoed a glass tty, to us. It was a black & white television set, a character generator, and a keyboard. Ran at 110 baud. I asked the salesman, if it could run at 150 or 300 baud, he said, "no", "why would you want to do that?". Everyone played with it, no one liked it. The conclusion was, the 33 TTY had a scroll buffer. :-) -- Gary A. Gorgen | "From ideas to PRODUCTS" tunxis@comcast.net | Tunxis Design Inc. | Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ###### From: mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 22 Apr 2004 15:34:02 GMT Organization: Micro Focus International Ltd Lines: 82 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mwojcik@newsguy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: p-212.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: xrn 9.00 Originator: mww@sen Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mww Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172150 In article , "David Wade" writes: > > On the 3270 the controller only held one screen of data, and any scrolling > was done by the host. On the other hand, 5250s, used with AS/400s (and I think with their predecessors, the System/38 and System/36), can hold multiple screens and do scrolling in the terminal. I agree with those who call these more sophisticated block-mode terminals "smart". They do a fair bit of local processing. Whether I'd call any character-mode terminal "smart" is another question; I'd have to think it over. Of course, "smart" doesn't always mean "better". The 5250 is a hard creature to love, with its dual-twinax cabling, its dead keys, its arcane protocol... On 3270s: Some people have mentioned 3270 emulation, but the OP and others who haven't used 3270s might not be aware that there are two different 3270 protocols. Real 3270s use IBM's SNA (System Network Architecture) LU2 (Logical Unit Type 2) protocol, which is a maze of twisty little passages that makes something like TCP/IP-over-GRE-over- PPP-over-V.92 seem the very soul of concision and sanity. (LU2 in turn rides on top of one of the various SNA transports, such as SDLC or Token Ring.) To facilitate using IBM mainframes from TCP/IP-equipped Unix systems and eventually PCs, a standard (RFC 1041 (1988), plus the various Telnet RFCs) was developed for a 3270 version of Telnet - TN3270. It didn't prove popular, though, and most vendors implemented their own version of TN3270 support using the standard Telnet mechanisms for Terminal Type, Binary Transmission, and End of Record. RFC 1576 (1994) documented this as a de facto standard. RFC 1647 (1994), replaced by 2355 (1998), created TN3270E, an enhanced TN3270, which created a new official TN3270E Telnet Option and added various features. LU2 and TN3270[E] are very different. TN3270 is a form of Telnet, running over TCP/IP. LU2 is an SNA protocol. Aside from carrying user data in EBCDIC and having some functional similarities (by necessity) they have little in common. When PCs were used to emulate 3270s, then, they generally emulated either real LU2 3270s or provided TN3270 support. (In later years some people might have had both; we did at my former job, because we were a comms-software company that supported both SNA and TCP/IP.) TCP/IP was relatively uncommon on IBM mainframes until, say, the mid-1990s, and most people who needed PCs with 3270 support had the LU2 variety. That meant at a minimum an SNA stack and probably special hardware, usually a Token Ring or SDLC card, since Ethernet was also relatively uncommon on mainframes at the time. In the 1980s 3270-on-a-card options for IBM PCs were common (among people who needed 3270 capabilities); the "Irma" line from DCA was a popular choice. These cards typically had a coax connector for a direct cable to a controller and/or a connector for a synchronous modem for dial-up. There were also the IBM PC-3270 and PC-3270G (latter with graphics capabilities), which were PCs that came with an IBM 3270 card and associated software preinstalled. As TCP/IP became more common, so did TN3270 software, which didn't need any other special hardware or software if the PC was already running TCP/IP. Until TN3270E-compliant versions were available, TN3270 was distinctly inferior to real LU2 3270 in various ways, but it was often good enough. There was (and still is) a healthy market for 3270 "screen-scraping" products, which would present 3270 and/or TN3270 terminal data in a fancier fashion or wrap an API around it for programmatic processing. IBM had provided a standard API, HLLAPI (High Level Language API), later enhanced as EHLLAPI (usually pronounced "ee-hell-appy"), for this purpose. -- Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com Let's say the conservative is the quiet green grin of the crocodile ... an' the liberal is the SNAP! -- Walt Kelly ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 11:13:19 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:11:53 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:OJqRElXxzgVyZtYKG9Ja2HAgWaM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 72 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.202.78 X-Trace: sv3-FQsID+NDCZ/YHdlWNcSjthziEuvjj9AD8TTDrBAvPrC4RnMUQcStSvLgxD4Vo69vy6a9ysb+meI1QIK!S9u3+3a8LUq1dxllSpygEPB6vXPD7cpE/Heuc7kJ/+wmunxqJ9x85cZb X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cyclone.bc.net!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.usenetserver.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172153 mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) writes: > There was (and still is) a healthy market for 3270 "screen-scraping" > products, which would present 3270 and/or TN3270 terminal data in a > fancier fashion or wrap an API around it for programmatic processing. > IBM had provided a standard API, HLLAPI (High Level Language API), > later enhanced as EHLLAPI (usually pronounced "ee-hell-appy"), for > this purpose. there was the VTAM lu2.1 for "remote" 3270s. there were also lots of local 3270s ... where the controllers were directly channel attached to the machine. you could have vtam lu2.1 327x controllers and direct channel attach 327x controllers. There were also a huge number of bisync (BSC) 327x controllers (percusor to SNA) ... and I believer there is still some amount of bisync stuff floating around. the original was 3272 for 3277 terminals. there was then the protocol on the coax between the 327x controller and the 327x head. The original protocol on the 3272/3277 coax was called ANR. That left the keyboard control in the head of the terminal. the later controllers were 3274 and a variety of terminals, 3278, 3279, 3290. The protocol on this coax had a lot more features (& called DFT) ... as well as moving some amount of the control logic that had been in the 3277 head back to the controller. the 3277 had slow cursor repeat delay and slow cursor repeat rate. it also had an annoying habit it you were used to full-duplex and/or at least fast typing ... of locking the keyboard if you happen to hit a key at the same time the system was (re)writing/updating the screen. you then had to stop and hit reset to unlock the keyboard. there was a hardware patch inside the 3277 keyboard that allowed you to adjust the repeat delay and the repeat rate. there was also a FIFO box available for the keyboard lock problem. Inside the 3277 head, you unplugged the keyboard, plugged in the FIFO box, and plugged the keyboard into the FIFO box (closed up the head). The FIFO box would hold/delay keystrokes if it monitored that the screen was being updated. With the 3274 DCA protocol ... all of that logic moved to the controller and it was no longer possible to modify a 3278/3279 for those human factor issues (using common shared logic in the controller, reduced the cost of the individual terminal ... aka they got even dumber ... even tho they appeared to support more features). misc. past ANR/DFT posts http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#17 3270 protocol http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001m.html#19 3270 protocol http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002j.html#77 IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2002k.html#6 IBM 327x terminals and controllers (was Re: Itanium2 power when i was undergraduate I worked on a project that built a plug-compatible terminal controller ... and have since been accused of helping start the PCM controller business: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#360pcm supposedly the whole FS project was in large part based on IBM's response/reaction to the PCM controller business: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#futuresys there was several comments that after FS was canceled there still continued some efforts to make complex integration between the processor and the outlying boxes. there have been some references that might account for the extremely complex nature of SNA and the PU4/PU5 interface (although note, there are a number of references to SNA not being a system, not being a network, and not being an architecture). random related references along those lines: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#3tier -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: anoneds@netscape.net (Ben Yates) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 22 Apr 2004 13:50:38 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 11 Message-ID: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.143.239.24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082667038 1490 127.0.0.1 (22 Apr 2004 20:50:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 20:50:38 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172191 TCS wrote in message news:... [snip] > The only standard was BS moved one character to the left, CR to the > beginning of the line and LF to the next line. > Not so fast! I remember that some used BS, others used DEL (usually VAX). And then there was the problem of "Destructive" or "Non-Destructive"... Ben ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:03:44 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: TCS Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 16:03:44 -0500 Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.184.183 X-Trace: sv3-18WlsPxzkAKQIZXVCXFU4nTq0+PO7e2N+y94QcQe5HYVKW+8CcBV2Uph4+4XjPJZkkEacNu0T87rLUa!qrsFXf0TwW2l6SAxS8gGd8hrFW/ePPZajYxXqQgAH2tcZAsh5FuM1eAmO2XLykRRwDokPusuptY9!vmEHNiA2jykV24Hc21QzVzZrSg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172193 On 22 Apr 2004 13:50:38 -0700, Ben Yates wrote: >TCS wrote in message news:... >[snip] >> The only standard was BS moved one character to the left, CR to the >> beginning of the line and LF to the next line. >> >Not so fast! I remember that some used BS, others used DEL (usually >VAX). And then there was the problem of "Destructive" or >"Non-Destructive"... Yup. Standards were pretty poor when it came to terminals. Received DEL's would sometime do nothing or print a splotch. Usually the sequence to delete a character was BS,space,BS. ###### From: "David Wade" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:44:36 +0100 Lines: 146 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.168.51.233 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082670277 9565963 I 81.168.51.233 ([40235]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4927.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!81.168.51.233!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172195 "Michael Wojcik" wrote in message news:c68ola0bke@news3.newsguy.com... > > In article , "David Wade" writes: > > > > On the 3270 the controller only held one screen of data, and any scrolling > > was done by the host. > > On the other hand, 5250s, used with AS/400s (and I think with their > predecessors, the System/38 and System/36), can hold multiple screens > and do scrolling in the terminal. > > I agree with those who call these more sophisticated block-mode > terminals "smart". They do a fair bit of local processing. Whether > I'd call any character-mode terminal "smart" is another question; I'd > have to think it over. > There were some very smart charater mode terminals. In the early 1970's HP produced a family of character mode terminals which had a range of features to allow off line use. The simpler terminals had multiple pages of memory which could be loaded from the host. You could edit locally then send it back to the host. The more sophisticated versions had tape store, so you could enter the data on the screen and save to tape. I used to look after a Honeywell H3200 that had modifications in the Operating System to use these beasts. By hitting a function key you could download a screen load of data into the terminal, then after editing you hit a different and the data was uploaded back to the host. On the other hand I also remember the disbelief of some VAX folks when I filled in an tender return. It was for an IBM with 3270 screens and it said that host CPU time required to perform a whole host of character editing functions was "0". What fun , what joy :-). > Of course, "smart" doesn't always mean "better". The 5250 is a hard > creature to love, with its dual-twinax cabling, its dead keys, its > arcane protocol... > > > On 3270s: Some people have mentioned 3270 emulation, but the OP and > others who haven't used 3270s might not be aware that there are two > different 3270 protocols. > Real 3270s use IBM's SNA (System Network > Architecture) LU2 (Logical Unit Type 2) protocol, which is a maze of > twisty little passages that makes something like TCP/IP-over-GRE-over- > PPP-over-V.92 seem the very soul of concision and sanity. (LU2 in > turn rides on top of one of the various SNA transports, such as SDLC > or Token Ring.) > > To facilitate using IBM mainframes from TCP/IP-equipped Unix systems > and eventually PCs, a standard (RFC 1041 (1988), plus the various > Telnet RFCs) was developed for a 3270 version of Telnet - TN3270. It > didn't prove popular, though, and most vendors implemented their own > version of TN3270 support using the standard Telnet mechanisms for > Terminal Type, Binary Transmission, and End of Record. RFC 1576 > (1994) documented this as a de facto standard. RFC 1647 (1994), > replaced by 2355 (1998), created TN3270E, an enhanced TN3270, which > created a new official TN3270E Telnet Option and added various > features. > > LU2 and TN3270[E] are very different. TN3270 is a form of Telnet, > running over TCP/IP. LU2 is an SNA protocol. Aside from carrying > user data in EBCDIC and having some functional similarities (by > necessity) they have little in common. > I would beg to differ. The meaning of the EBCDIC data is almost identical. For example if the host sends a "read modified" request to the terminal the terminal will return the content of any changed fields. The codes for "start field", the attribute bytes for the field content, and the "AID" bytes which tell you which key is pressed, and the Set Buffer Address values which say where on the screen the field is are all the same. So at the "application" layer the data streams are the same. It is at the lowere layers where the differences occur. If you want to be pedantic, at the lower layers there are a whole host of transports, each of which, as noted by the 3270 "bible" "GA23-0059 Data Stream Programmer's Reference" has a slight influence on the possible data streams. There is as you say TN3270 dialects, and LU2 SNA. However there are also locally attached 3270's which have no LU2 in sight, and bi-sync attached 3270's, for which again there is no LU2, but which are (or well used to be) supported by or incorperated into SNA. > When PCs were used to emulate 3270s, then, they generally emulated > either real LU2 3270s or provided TN3270 support. (In later years > some people might have had both; we did at my former job, because we > were a comms-software company that supported both SNA and TCP/IP.) > TCP/IP was relatively uncommon on IBM mainframes until, say, the > mid-1990s, and most people who needed PCs with 3270 support had the > LU2 variety. That meant at a minimum an SNA stack and probably > special hardware, usually a Token Ring or SDLC card, since Ethernet > was also relatively uncommon on mainframes at the time. In the 1980s > 3270-on-a-card options for IBM PCs were common (among people who > needed 3270 capabilities); the "Irma" line from DCA was a popular > choice. These cards typically had a coax connector for a direct > cable to a controller and/or a connector for a synchronous modem for > dial-up. > I think the SNA option and token ring really came after the "3270 on a card" option. There were the IRMA cards, the IBM cards and also Attachmate cards. I think all these cards meant the PC did not have to understand any of the vageries of SNA. They just talked to a 3274 or 3174 controller and provided "dumb terminal" emulation. Later there were a range of SNA server options, where a server PC handled the SNA part of the protocol and the users PC's talked to it using PC type protocols e.g., NETBUI, IPX/SPX or TCP/IP. That way you only needed one "special" card in the server, and the individual PCs talked normal LAN protocols > There were also the IBM PC-3270 and PC-3270G (latter with graphics > capabilities), which were PCs that came with an IBM 3270 card and > associated software preinstalled. > > As TCP/IP became more common, so did TN3270 software, which didn't > need any other special hardware or software if the PC was already > running TCP/IP. Until TN3270E-compliant versions were available, > TN3270 was distinctly inferior to real LU2 3270 in various ways, but > it was often good enough. > > There was (and still is) a healthy market for 3270 "screen-scraping" > products, which would present 3270 and/or TN3270 terminal data in a > fancier fashion or wrap an API around it for programmatic processing. > IBM had provided a standard API, HLLAPI (High Level Language API), > later enhanced as EHLLAPI (usually pronounced "ee-hell-appy"), for > this purpose. I know attachmate had its own enhanced versions as well. (and yes I'm free if any one wants any of this stuff) Dave Wade g4ugm (at) hotmail (dot) com > > -- > Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com > > Let's say the conservative is the quiet green grin of the crocodile ... > an' the liberal is the SNAP! -- Walt Kelly ###### Message-ID: <408893CE.28EC6BD6@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:02:52 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.76.140.80 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1082692972 12.76.140.80 (Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:02:52 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:02:52 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172227 TCS wrote: > ... snip ... > > Yup. Standards were pretty poor when it came to terminals. > Received DEL's would sometime do nothing or print a splotch. > Usually the sequence to delete a character was BS,space,BS. I distinguished between DEL and BS on input to allow both glass and semi-real TTYs. BS would act as above, but DEL would emit BS, '/', BS and set a flag, so that the first non DEL input would first emit a LF. Nothing helped on a real TTY, because it couldn't backspace. This required re-echoing the line, so far. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address! ###### From: "lkrupp@pssw.NOSPAM.com.INVALID" <"lkrupp@pssw.NOSPAM.com.INVALID"> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:06:39 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <108h5p1d7r7vk88@corp.supernews.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, he MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 24 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!216.168.1.162!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172229 yogesh wrote: > in the mainframe era of computers,dumb terminals were used. Some weren't dumb, just weird. Some were excellent. Burroughs had the BIDS unit: 80x24 screen, but a buffer of only 1000 characters or so -- fill the buffer and it beeped a lot. The Burroughs TD820 used a poll/select protocol. The host looped through multiple terminals on a line sending any output and polling for pending input. A transaction processing system such as GEMCOS could lock the terminal so that the transmit light wouldn't go out until the transaction had been logged to disk. The TD830 was very cool. It could do things like hidden and right-justified fields. The TD850 was unexpectedly slow. User reaction was typified by this: A: Rintintin, Lassie, and the TD850. Q: Name two stars and a dog. Louis Krupp ###### From: rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:49:01 -0500 Organization: FIELDATA FORTRAN ENTHUSIASTS CLUB Reply-To: rsteiner@visi.com Message-ID: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> References: X-Newsreader: Yarn for OS/2 v0.92 X-Machine-Specs: Micron PPro/200 w/192MB RAM + OS/2 Warp 4 FP 15 X-Stuff-Running: There are 61 Processes with 186 Threads. X-System-Uptime: 5d 20h 32m 9s 117ms X-Armor-Class-From-Above: -17 User-Agent: VSoup v1.2.9.48Beta [OS/2] Lines: 12 NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2004 00:32:42 CDT NNTP-Posting-Host: 99d3bd13.authen.newsreader.visi.com X-Trace: DXC=[WThkc82daXbB1@>oB^`UQOG;lf4n<5gZhD3OXm`l_bXQOUdibPGgJ_^ZXXa\R:@PUWOMZ[Z?QbDZoeBg=3hEGDPBVA42]kRj9Y X-Complaints-To: abuse@visi.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!phobos.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!authen.news-1.mpls.visi.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172232 Here in alt.folklore.computers, pmc@finger-rock.com (Patrick Connors) spake unto us, saying: > - Patrick (should I type $! now?) Connors I know that keystroke sequence. That's a *bad* keystroke sequence! :-) -- -Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven! Applications analyst/designer/developer (14 yrs) seeking employment. See web site above for resume/CV and background. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Roger Ivie Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <108h5p1d7r7vk88@corp.supernews.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0 (NetBSD) Lines: 17 NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.219.240.159 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com X-Trace: attbi_s54 1082699289 12.219.240.159 (Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:48:09 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:48:09 GMT Organization: MediaCom High Speed Internet Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:48:09 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.news2me.com!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s54.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172234 On 2004-04-23, lkrupp@pssw.NOSPAM.com.INVALID <> wrote: > The TD830 was very cool. It could do things like hidden and > right-justified fields. The TD830 was built around some flavor of 6800 and had some special escape sequences that allowed you to peek and poke the micro's memory. I really enjoyed that terminal... -- Roger Ivie rivie@ridgenet.net http://anachronda.webhop.org/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS/P d- s:+++ a+ C++ UB--(++++) !P L- !E W++ N++ o-- K w O- M+ V+++ PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP t+ 5+ X-- R tv++ b++ DI+++ D+ G e++ h--- r+++ z+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408893CE.28EC6BD6@yahoo.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 29 Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:04:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1082703878 24.71.223.147 (Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:04:38 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:04:38 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172239 On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:02:52 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, CBFalconer wrote: >TCS wrote: >> >... snip ... >> >> Yup. Standards were pretty poor when it came to terminals. >> Received DEL's would sometime do nothing or print a splotch. >> Usually the sequence to delete a character was BS,space,BS. > >I distinguished between DEL and BS on input to allow both glass >and semi-real TTYs. BS would act as above, but DEL would emit BS, >'/', BS and set a flag, so that the first non DEL input would >first emit a LF. > >Nothing helped on a real TTY, because it couldn't backspace. This >required re-echoing the line, so far. Most DEC systems on hardcopy terminals echoed \ then each character deleted going backwards in the line then another \ when a non-delete character was typed: for example, "I made a mistook\koo\ake". Some systems also supported ctrl-R IIRC to retype the remaining input on a new line. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 07:13:11 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1082704391 24.71.223.147 (Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:13:11 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:13:11 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172240 On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:49:01 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, rsteiner@visi.com (Richard Steiner) wrote: >Here in alt.folklore.computers, >pmc@finger-rock.com (Patrick Connors) spake unto us, saying: > >> - Patrick (should I type $! now?) Connors > >I know that keystroke sequence. That's a *bad* keystroke sequence! :-) But it's only a DCL (Digital Command Language) comment line. If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment starting in column 1: /* this is the start and end of the program */ -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 23 Apr 2004 02:15:43 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082711744 17715 127.0.0.1 (23 Apr 2004 09:15:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:15:44 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172243 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... > In article , > ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: > > > > ..i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if > >someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the > >late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material is > >available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional > >touch.) > > Go visit one. > /BAH What do you mean???? ###### Message-ID: <4088E7B3.1A39B9B9@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408893CE.28EC6BD6@yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 36 Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:53:43 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.76.139.112 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1082714023 12.76.139.112 (Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:53:43 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:53:43 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!feed2.news.rcn.net!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172246 Brian Inglis wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:02:52 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, CBFalconer > wrote: > > >TCS wrote: > >> > >... snip ... > >> > >> Yup. Standards were pretty poor when it came to terminals. > >> Received DEL's would sometime do nothing or print a splotch. > >> Usually the sequence to delete a character was BS,space,BS. > > > >I distinguished between DEL and BS on input to allow both glass > >and semi-real TTYs. BS would act as above, but DEL would emit BS, > >'/', BS and set a flag, so that the first non DEL input would > >first emit a LF. > > > >Nothing helped on a real TTY, because it couldn't backspace. This > >required re-echoing the line, so far. > > Most DEC systems on hardcopy terminals echoed \ then each character > deleted going backwards in the line then another \ when a non-delete > character was typed: for example, "I made a mistook\koo\ake". Some > systems also supported ctrl-R IIRC to retype the remaining input on a > new line. The actual problem was to find a collection of techniques that worked on all the terminals you had in service. It was pleasant if the user didn't have to know or do anything special. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address! ###### From: Paul Repacholi Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:16:23 +0800 Organization: none Lines: 32 Message-ID: <877jw699ew.fsf@prep.synonet.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.190.192.5 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: nnrp.waia.asn.au 1082730338 4207 203.190.192.5 (23 Apr 2004 14:25:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@nnrp.waia.asn.au NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:25:38 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1001 (Gnus v5.10.1) Emacs/21.2 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:KtwKDjGWi/QGijYhdw1GQxciMN8= Cache-Post-Path: grimiore.conceptual.net.au!unknown@202-137-98-036.dial.usertools.net X-Cache: nntpcache 2.3.3 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!nntp.waia.asn.au!nnrp.waia.asn.au!127.0.0.1!nobody Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172261 "Jack Peacock" writes: > "Bill/Carolyn Pechter" wrote in message > news:c64a0k$see$1@shell.monmouth.com... >> I heard the block mode was rigged for TRAX (which, supposedly >> morphed into RSX11M+)... Trax was supposedly designed to do >> transaction processing on PDP11/70's. > From what I could tell it was basically 11M with chrome bumpers, a > two tone paint job and racing stripe. Lots of sizzle, no additional > steak. RSX-11M preceded Trax by several years. Not so, TRAX was M-PLUS v1.0 with a few changes. v2.0 was a pretty different animal. TRAX hit a couple of road blocks. The 74 would trash a 780 with out trying, so it had to go. Plus there was the reliability issue of the 500+ flat grey cables. The next problem was to get the speed up, you had to use DMA block mode, and that locked up the cache on KB-11s :( so the CPU stalled. I feel that M-PLUS is still the most advanced OS outside the big iron part of the world. -- Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd., +61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda. West Australia 6076 comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked. EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be. ###### From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 23 Apr 2004 15:38:38 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082734718 25092 134.117.136.48 (23 Apr 2004 15:38:38 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2004 15:38:38 GMT X-Given-Sender: et472@smeagol.ncf.ca (Michael Black) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!et472 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172264 yogesh (ypjofficial@indiatimes.com) writes: > jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... >> In article , >> ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >> >> >> > ..i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if >> >someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the >> >late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material is >> >available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional >> >touch.) >> >> Go visit one. >> /BAH > > What do you mean???? I believe it was clear, if you can overlook stereotypes. I read it as "Go visit a grandmother and ask her about Teletype machines". So long as you can accept that there are women who would know about Teletype machines, and accept that they may now be getting on in years, then indeed it might be tales that Grandma might tell. Michael ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 23 Apr 2004 15:41:15 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082734875 25412 134.117.136.48 (23 Apr 2004 15:41:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2004 15:41:15 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172265 Brian Inglis (Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid) writes: > > If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment starting > in column 1: > /* this is the start and end of the program */ And yet, any half decent error correcting PL/I compiler could fill in the rest of the program using the DWIM algorithm. ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:08:40 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1082740120 24.71.223.147 (Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:08:40 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:08:40 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172278 On 23 Apr 2004 15:41:15 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) wrote: >Brian Inglis (Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid) writes: >> >> If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment starting >> in column 1: >> /* this is the start and end of the program */ > > And yet, any half decent error correcting PL/I compiler could > fill in the rest of the program using the DWIM algorithm. You mean the "plunk in a punctuation character to proceed" approach, which allows the compiler to generate another 10K error messages? -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 23 Apr 2004 18:34:35 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082745275 16871 134.117.136.48 (23 Apr 2004 18:34:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2004 18:34:35 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-mue1.dfn.de!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172286 Brian Inglis (Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid) writes: > On 23 Apr 2004 15:41:15 GMT in alt.folklore.computers, > ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) wrote: > >>Brian Inglis (Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid) writes: >>> >>> If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment starting >>> in column 1: >>> /* this is the start and end of the program */ >> >> And yet, any half decent error correcting PL/I compiler could >> fill in the rest of the program using the DWIM algorithm. > > You mean the "plunk in a punctuation character to proceed" approach, > which allows the compiler to generate another 10K error messages? Well, that's not the way G. Weinberg explained it in his PL/I Manual of Style book of circa 70. Come to think of it, he never did elaborate on the Compleat Error Correxion Method in that tome. ###### From: Rupert Pigott Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:42:45 +0100 Organization: Titanic Enterprises Unlimited Lines: 16 Message-ID: <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: darkboong.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1082745765 9488 80.177.7.220 (23 Apr 2004 18:42:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:42:45 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 Cache-Post-Path: teapot.planet.gong!unknown@192.168.1.10 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172287 Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote: > Brian Inglis (Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid) writes: > >>If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment starting >>in column 1: >>/* this is the start and end of the program */ > > > And yet, any half decent error correcting PL/I compiler could > fill in the rest of the program using the DWIM algorithm. The DWIM algorithm is a classic case of poor requirements analysis. What you *really* need is a DWIN algorithm. :) Cheers, Rupert ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 23 Apr 04 12:09:59 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 26 Message-ID: <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-254.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172292 In article <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> roo@dark-try-removing-this-boong.demon.co.uk (Rupert Pigott) writes: >Heinz W. Wiggeshoff wrote: > >> Brian Inglis (Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid) writes: >> >>>If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment >>>starting in column 1: >>>/* this is the start and end of the program */ >> >> And yet, any half decent error correcting PL/I compiler could >> fill in the rest of the program using the DWIM algorithm. > >The DWIM algorithm is a classic case of poor requirements >analysis. What you *really* need is a DWIN algorithm. :) DWIN has been discontinued due to lack of customer demand. It's been replaced by DWIS (short for DWISNWID). -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 23 Apr 2004 21:52:43 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 6 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082757163 14782 134.117.136.48 (23 Apr 2004 21:52:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Apr 2004 21:52:43 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172304 "Charlie Gibbs" (cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid) writes: > > DWIN has been discontinued due to lack of customer demand. > It's been replaced by DWIS (short for DWISNWID). WAIT FOR IT! I'll figure it out eventually, after supper. ###### From: "Don Chiasson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Lines: 22 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:29:09 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.157.42.82 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rogers.com X-Trace: news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com 1082759349 24.157.42.82 (Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:29:09 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:29:09 EDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!newsfeed.mountaincable.net!cyclone01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com!news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com.POSTED!12dc6cf53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172306 "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote in message news:c6c37b$edu$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > "Charlie Gibbs" (cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid) writes: > > > > DWIN has been discontinued due to lack of customer demand. > > It's been replaced by DWIS (short for DWISNWID). > > WAIT FOR IT! I'll figure it out eventually, after supper. Do What I Say Not What I Do ? (I just ate.) The LISP community started the DWIM thing, but after finding it did not always work, so the next step was DWRIM - Do What I Really Mean. Don C++ e-mail: it's not not, it's hot. ###### From: freddy1X Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> Lines: 17 User-Agent: KNode/0.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:09:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.251.185.24 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net 1082765359 68.251.185.24 (Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:09:19 PDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 17:09:19 PDT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!41226605!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172310 Don Chiasson wrote: > > "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote in message > Do What I Say Not What I Do ? (I just ate.) > > The LISP community started the DWIM thing, but after finding it > did not always work, so the next step was > DWRIM - ..^^. I find this really ironic. > Do What I > Really Mean. ###### From: Rupert Pigott Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:13:43 +0100 Organization: Titanic Enterprises Unlimited Lines: 29 Message-ID: <1082765624.22558@teapot.planet.gong> References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: darkboong.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1082765624 9730 80.177.7.220 (24 Apr 2004 00:13:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:13:44 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 Cache-Post-Path: teapot.planet.gong!unknown@192.168.1.10 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172311 Don Chiasson wrote: > "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote in message > news:c6c37b$edu$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > >>"Charlie Gibbs" (cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid) writes: >> >>>DWIN has been discontinued due to lack of customer demand. >>>It's been replaced by DWIS (short for DWISNWID). >> >> WAIT FOR IT! I'll figure it out eventually, after supper. > > > Do What I Say Not What I Do ? (I just ate.) > > The LISP community started the DWIM thing, but after finding it > did not always work, so the next step was DWRIM - Do What I > Really Mean. The problem is : That still requires a number of inconvienient pre-requisites, such as : 1) requirements analysis has been done and is correct. 2) you have bothered to read the requirements. 3) you understand the requirements. DWIN, is far safer. :) Cheers, Rupert ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 01:31:48 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082766729 10226278 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172313 Rupert Pigott wrote: >> And yet, any half decent error correcting PL/I compiler could >> fill in the rest of the program using the DWIM algorithm. > > The DWIM algorithm is a classic case of poor requirements > analysis. What you *really* need is a DWIN algorithm. :) > Or DWIMC. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### From: Roland Hutchinson Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:41:23 -0400 Lines: 14 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-151-198-156-191.nwrk.east.verizon.net (151.198.156.191) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082767283 10920659 I 151.198.156.191 ([99522]) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pool-151-198-156-191.nwrk.east.verizon.NET!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172315 In article on Friday 23 April 2004 18:29, Don Chiasson wrote: > The LISP community started the DWIM thing That would be specifically the INTERLISP community, wouldn't it? The Maclisp community at the time consisted predominantly of Real Programmers. WYGIWYAF was good enough for them. -- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 24 Apr 2004 02:36:45 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082774205 10871 134.117.136.48 (24 Apr 2004 02:36:45 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Apr 2004 02:36:45 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.yul.equant.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172318 Roland Hutchinson (my.spamtrap@verizon.net) writes: > In article on > Friday 23 April 2004 18:29, Don Chiasson wrote: > >> The LISP community started the DWIM thing > > That would be specifically the INTERLISP community, wouldn't it? The > Maclisp community at the time consisted predominantly of Real Programmers. > WYGIWYAF was good enough for them. -------- My monitor is left with a blinking red square at this one, so I'll try again in 5 hours. Meanwhile, I'll be out back to tap the sap of the pine and birch to fortify myself for further followups. (And to think that I nearly dug out Don Lancaster's TV tty book for that circuit diagram instead of drifting. B-) ###### Message-ID: <4089F844.D0684A10@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 22 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:17:41 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.76.138.97 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1082783861 12.76.138.97 (Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:17:41 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 05:17:41 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172324 "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote: > Roland Hutchinson (my.spamtrap@verizon.net) writes: >> Don Chiasson wrote: >> >>> The LISP community started the DWIM thing >> >> That would be specifically the INTERLISP community, wouldn't it? >> The Maclisp community at the time consisted predominantly of >> Real Programmers. WYGIWYAF was good enough for them. > -------- > > My monitor is left with a blinking red square at this one, > so I'll try again in 5 hours. What you get is what you asked for ?? -- "I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind." - Bush. "Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes. ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 24 Apr 2004 03:14:20 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082801660 18595 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2004 10:14:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:14:20 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172327 Bernd Felsche wrote in message news:... > ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: > > >> I'm going to assume from your question that you're not one of us older folks > >> or, at least, don't have the long background many of us do. You seem to be > >> genuinely curious about how thing once were... so here goes. > >rightly pointed out Bill.its very unfortunate and sad that modern > >computer study material only discusses about the current trends and > >future scope with very little emphasis on the history.so sometimes i > >really get curious about how the things started and how the people > >then,evolutionsed and revolutionized the computer world. > >listening it from the veterans like you is like listening the sweet > >grandma/pa(hope you won't mind)story telling...thanks for the inputs > >given to me..i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if > >someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the > >late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material is > >available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional > >touch.) > > I can't be bothered with reading the above. But its for sure that you bothered yourself first with reading it. Anyway you were not invited. ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 24 Apr 2004 03:16:50 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 6 Message-ID: References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082801811 18776 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2004 10:16:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:16:51 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172328 et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote in message news:... > >> Go visit one. I visited you and you were dumber than a dumbest terminal. :) regards, Yogesh ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 04 11:05:18 GMT Lines: 33 Message-ID: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=;NDLMg6@ccna5b__i:71lg0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9j1c?;d\F`fNgI3O8BVgV^Pij5INh9>P^_eglUdm=P44R` X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!c03.atl99!news.usenetserver.com!diablo.voicenet.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172357 In article , TCS wrote: >On 22 Apr 2004 13:50:38 -0700, Ben Yates wrote: >>TCS wrote in message news:... >>[snip] >>> The only standard was BS moved one character to the left, CR to the >>> beginning of the line and LF to the next line. >>> > >>Not so fast! I remember that some used BS, others used DEL (usually >>VAX). And then there was the problem of "Destructive" or >>"Non-Destructive"... > > >Yup. Standards were pretty poor when it came to terminals. Received DEL's >would sometime do nothing or print a splotch. Usually the sequence to delete >a character was BS,space,BS. That all depended on how the hardware worked. On some displays there was a home action taken before anything. None of this matters because the characters sent to the _computer_ system adhered to a standard. Thus the software types didn't have to worry about what kind of TTY send the character. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 04 11:07:23 GMT Lines: 38 Message-ID: <408a67a7$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=L_[iSNKZ3]2ZG4_KakBji10R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:1c?;d\F`fN7I3O8BVgV^P9j5INh9>P^_5glUdm=P44R0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172358 In article , et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote: >yogesh (ypjofficial@indiatimes.com) writes: >> jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... >>> In article , >>> ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >>> >>> >>> > ..i am also curious about the working of the teletypes..if >>> >someone could share their experience ,it will be once again the >>> >late_night_grandma_story_telling_experience.(though lot of material is >>> >available on the net , hardly anyone has the personal and emotional >>> >touch.) >>> >>> Go visit one. >>> /BAH >> >> What do you mean???? > >I believe it was clear, if you can overlook stereotypes. > >I read it as "Go visit a grandmother and ask her about Teletype machines". ROTFLMAO. I didn't mean that. I meant, "Go visit a Teletype machine". > >So long as you can accept that there are women who would know about >Teletype machines, and accept that they may now be getting on in years, >then indeed it might be tales that Grandma might tell. > > Michael ROTFL. Smarty pants. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 04 11:09:19 GMT Lines: 14 Message-ID: <408a681b$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=TAllKoS[2Cd30JO1\W@`C`0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9j1c?;d\F`fNgI3O8BVgV^Pij5INh9>P^_eglUdm=P44R` X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!ra.nrl.navy.mil!news2.wam.umd.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172359 In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote in message news:... >> >> Go visit one. >I visited you and you were dumber than a dumbest terminal. :) hmmmmm.....Who were you addressing that to? Michael or me? Either way you've just stepped into very deep doo-doo. I suggest you think before you use the other foot. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 04 13:21:47 GMT Lines: 20 Message-ID: <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=\IRlTVMaL_kBC39a`:W@Lg0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jFdHV3NCmKSfoaC=PXFli=c`FZbbYK>gRo X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news2.euro.net!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172376 In article <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com>, "Bill Leary" wrote: >> > The only standard was BS moved one character to the left, CR to the >> > beginning of the line and LF to the next line. >> >> Not so fast! I remember that some used BS, others used DEL (usually >> VAX). And then there was the problem of "Destructive" or >> "Non-Destructive"... > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. > >The fact that you mention VAX If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <877jw699ew.fsf@prep.synonet.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 04 13:24:51 GMT Lines: 13 Message-ID: <408a87dd$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=0SX^h1M6HWUhJ9]?>Anf]Q0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZFdHV3NCmKSVoaC=PXFli=S`FZbbYK>gR_ X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!diablo.voicenet.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172378 In article <877jw699ew.fsf@prep.synonet.com>, Paul Repacholi wrote: >I feel that M-PLUS is still the most advanced OS outside the big iron >part of the world. IAS. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sat, 24 Apr 04 13:29:20 GMT Lines: 17 Message-ID: <408a88ea$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=EBU`UPS=kkk30JO1\W@`C`0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jFdHV3NCmKSfoaC=PXFli=c`FZbbYK>gRo X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172379 In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >Bernd Felsche wrote in message news:... >> I can't be bothered with reading the above. > >But its for sure that you bothered yourself first with reading it. >Anyway you were not invited. Child, you just blew it. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 24 Apr 2004 14:24:05 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> <4089F844.D0684A10@yahoo.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082816645 9327 134.117.136.48 (24 Apr 2004 14:24:05 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Apr 2004 14:24:05 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172361 CBFalconer (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) writes: > "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote: >> Roland Hutchinson (my.spamtrap@verizon.net) writes: >>> Don Chiasson wrote: >>> >>>> The LISP community started the DWIM thing >>> >>> That would be specifically the INTERLISP community, wouldn't it? >>> The Maclisp community at the time consisted predominantly of >>> Real Programmers. WYGIWYAF was good enough for them. >> -------- >> >> My monitor is left with a blinking red square at this one, >> so I'll try again in 5 hours. > > What you get is what you asked for ?? Not in my life, (unless it was in a really expensive restaurant). I couldn't make out What You Get Is What You Deserve from that, or the more likely Shit Happens slogan. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 09:33:43 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 10:36:54 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> Lines: 52 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-7aBxs9ZXYrb7KiBwH46cnqJGFGSuJr7ANqgJ9TQSL9sLVdXbAKuq9ugAe44KFBRI58EMUmOZn6mdLUS!TcuXwTd+70OJpGCVs7e2NI3ie6DnEkm2uF/6i2bRuQPajOkX7/8L5Z3OInU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172365 > > The only standard was BS moved one character to the left, CR to the > > beginning of the line and LF to the next line. > > Not so fast! I remember that some used BS, others used DEL (usually > VAX). And then there was the problem of "Destructive" or > "Non-Destructive"... Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. The fact that you mention VAX gets me to thinking you really mean DEC and one of it's OS's, in which case you're correct and you've just opened a whopping big can of worms as we'll be comparing DEC, DG, IBM (do we really wanna get into EBCDIC?), Honeywell and all the other oldies. But back at the glass teletype and the (to take an example) ADM3, if the computer sent ASCII Back Space (BS, 0x08) the cursor would back up one character cell. Nothing more. It wouldn't erase the previous character. If you were already at the upper left, nothing would happen. As I recall, if the system sent Delete (DEL, 0x7F) you'd get a hash character (the 5 X 7 cell would have every other pixel turned on). On the keyboard side, I don't recall if the ADM3 actually had a Back Space key. I think it did so. I know the later ADM3A had one. As may be The Back Space key on the vast majority of terminals, without translation or vendor variations, would send ASCII Back Space (BS, 0x08) to the computer. You'd get the same thing with Control-H. I do recall using some terminals which had a translation on the BS key which forced one into using Control-H if you wanted to send a real Back Space to the computer. As I recall, these things usually sent DEL when you hit Back Space. Most of them also had a switch somewhere you could flip to make them act normally. Those that had a DEL key were more interesting. The majority of them actually sent Delete (DEL, 0x7F), but some of them sent other things, like BS or Escape (ESC) followed by DEL or some other sort of frack. And these were just the "dumb" terminals. After the VT52's, VT100's and the hundred and one other folks entered the market with intelligent and semi-intelligent terminals things got to be a real mine field. And, of course, there was that wonderful transition time between the dumb terminals and the intelligent ones when features were being added in bits. I do indeed recall one terminal which could be sent a command to turn on a (let me try to remember how they phrased it) "transmission saving character erase feature" What they did was (get ready for it) if you sent BS to the terminal after activating this mode, it did a BS, SPACE, BS all by itself. It was an interesting time to try to write a portable editor. The wide acceptance of termcap, despite it's annoying interface, was a relief in so many ways. - Bill ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 11:10:19 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 12:13:30 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-lLDUzXdnysgoOMPLT/HNqsCpv3ZX2fXyCh45sOPEGb9CjVsgkBDPjr97rkRfnsgP8ElZY03YgLMqPST!3wGwdfex7pU2bDjJlRe7FBwAH5cYoFTf70zxRXqrxxmZLQ8VYAnkS85Di2I= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!feeder2.ecngs.de!217.73.144.44.MISMATCH!ecngs!feeder.ecngs.de!news.cambrium.nl!news.cambrium.nl!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172383 wrote in message news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. > > > >The fact that you mention VAX > > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was thinking PDP. - Bill ###### From: "Michael N. LeVine" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 13:16:42 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 27 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!62.253.162.219.MISMATCH!newsrout1.ntli.net!news-in.ntli.net!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!mlevinespmfltr Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172402 In article , "Bill Leary" wrote: > wrote in message > news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. > > > > > >The fact that you mention VAX > > > > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. > > Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 > attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was thinking > PDP. > > - Bill > > No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. A family of hard copy terminal's useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing each character as it passed. -- Michael LeVine - mlevine@redshift.com "Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:37:09 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082839327 12006948 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172407 Michael N. LeVine wrote: > > No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. A family of hard copy terminal's > useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing > each character as it passed. Aye, spent a fair while using DECwriter-IIIs as both printers *and* terminals. Most amusing was when the group I was working in had a sonar demo to the MoD. The portacabins we were working in had their windows covered over with black binbags, so we could show off all the battle lighting. It was in the mid-80s outside, and probably about 100-105 degrees in the huts.... I took myself off to the "machine room", which was an old refrigerated/air conditioned container with the Vax and a couple of DECwriter-IIIs in there - gorgeously cool and I got lots of useful work done. Although the high point was playing a version of Space Invaders that printed the whole game out on a new page every time something moved - turned it into a strategy game, really ;) pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:56:31 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:59:42 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-2NFCypvLww9C8EBIhhV7IlllUJUILlxZebyTkg422vCmBPNHy1xTS+TWii/QHlLzTmLFJk8Bw6oh7RN!c45rD9SQ79N2EIv6+QQLgFSArx6sSXjTZg8h59rQ8y7YKZSSJOQx70+0/yY= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172408 "Michael N. LeVine" wrote in message news:mlevinespmfltr-43E102.13163924042004@corp.supernews.com... > No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. A family of hard > copy terminal's useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the > paper printing each character as it passed. Of course you're correct that these were terminals too. I guess the habit runs deep that I never thought of the hardcopy devices as "terminals" in the same sense that I though of the tube ones as being. I always thought of them as "consoles." Of the two VAXen we had, one had a DECwriter such as you describe as it's primary operator console. The other had, now that you bring it to mind, something like a IBM selectric, right down to the golf-ball printing element. What a wonder it was to watch it hammer out a message. Even more of a wonder when the FE replaced it and didn't quite get the latch secured correctly. - Bill ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:18:06 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 15:18:05 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-MdG2jOko5cG0B+i0nH6rltlyXfazzLaMpQigB+iUk7T8JXf9GTEuFm81oBTmHTg7DY2gE4b1R93xi7T!mpmGVEOln6Qtzn7tW6El6dwn+coks5Xl8Jqcgu/Ms8TEpcjggxjhtEVrQQpScqSKZEy2EBtngvTb!lPk= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172410 "yogesh" wrote in message news:f88a27e4.0404240216.57fd92b0@posting.google.com... > et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote in message news:... > > >> Go visit one. > I visited you and you were dumber than a dumbest terminal. :) > Refusing to benefit from someone else's experience pretty much guarantees you will have ample opportunity to relearn the lessons on your own...the hard way. Jack Peacock ###### Message-ID: <408B16A6.D675D1FF@comcast.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.126.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s02 1082850313 24.1.126.198 (Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:45:13 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:45:13 GMT Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:45:13 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.utanet.at!news.glorb.com!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s02.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172415 "Michael N. LeVine" wrote: > > In article , > "Bill Leary" wrote: > > > wrote in message > > news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. > > > > > > > >The fact that you mention VAX > > > > > > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. > > > > Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 > > attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was thinking > > PDP. > > > > - Bill > > > > > > No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. A family of hard copy terminal's > useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing > each character as it passed. > Since Michael gave that most lucid description...let's see a show of hands: How many here have *never* seen a DecWriter??? How many have *never* used a DecWriter??? -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Message-ID: <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.126.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s51 1082850534 24.1.126.198 (Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:54 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:54 GMT Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:48:54 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s51.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172416 Bill Leary wrote: > > "Michael N. LeVine" wrote in message > news:mlevinespmfltr-43E102.13163924042004@corp.supernews.com... > > No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. A family of hard > > copy terminal's useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the > > paper printing each character as it passed. > > Of course you're correct that these were terminals too. I guess the habit > runs deep that I never thought of the hardcopy devices as "terminals" in the > same sense that I though of the tube ones as being. I always thought of > them as "consoles." > > Of the two VAXen we had, one had a DECwriter such as you describe as it's > primary operator console. The other had, now that you bring it to mind, > something like a IBM selectric, right down to the golf-ball printing > element. What a wonder it was to watch it hammer out a message. Even more > of a wonder when the FE replaced it and didn't quite get the latch secured > correctly. > DecWriters are contraptions alright...but at least they used *spools* of ribbon...good old-timey-looking cloth (probably linen) ribbons that reversed directions at the end. For latter day hardcopy terminals, do *not* forget the TI Silent 700. It printed on heat-sensative paper (yuk!) and had a 300 baud modem on the back...complete with the acoustic coupler. Some models contained bubble memory... -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: anoneds@netscape.net (Ben Yates) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 24 Apr 2004 16:58:24 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 43 Message-ID: <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.149.32.116 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082851105 6356 127.0.0.1 (24 Apr 2004 23:58:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 23:58:25 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!meganewsservers.com!feeder2.on.meganewsservers.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172417 "Bill Leary" wrote in message news:... > wrote in message > news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. > > > > > >The fact that you mention VAX > > > > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. > > Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 > attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was thinking > PDP. > > - Bill I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character instead of a BS. I can only name one other "system" that utilized DEL instead of BS, and it was a computer whose RS232 board used DEL instead of BS - the TI-99/4A. One of the early programs written for it was a BS fixer. BS would cause a backspace, but the record would store the backspace character inline. And since the TI didn't interpret BS's, you'd have the mistakes, the BSes, and the correct characters. The record might contain something like: "This is a misteak(BS)(BS)(BS)ake". It used DEL similar to the VAX and DEC terminals, in that when the RS232 was open in ECho mode, you could send a DEL for each character to delete, it would echo it (it didn't use "\"'s), and you could issue a ctrl-R and the RS232 would echo the line back to you. So, you could type "This is a misteak(DEL)k(DEL)a(DEL)eake" and CTRL-R would then show: "This is a mistake" and that is what the record would contain at that point. More than any of you wanted to know, I am sure... Ben P.S. - I remember modifying an emulator's RS232 ROM image to change the DEL to BS, and it worked. Would have been nice to have the ability to specify which to use in the TI world, like the DEC VT terminals could specify... ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:22:46 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:25:58 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 12 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-6SXyEztYJQeBOb1ywfzpWh/XGrhsRcy9enl+tgdyEni3rpMjIPLb2LL1Cc5KtLDY5guujAv5LgIy8cU!bNWMaipOJC8Wdigg3F/0Y3Qxr08lkAM9ZjTgCKAbrRYLxnA6nmOkRWrSjF8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!HSNX.atgi.net!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!216.196.106.144!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172418 "Charles Richmond" wrote in message news:408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net... > For latter day hardcopy terminals, do *not* forget the TI > Silent 700. It printed on heat-sensative paper (yuk!) and > had a 300 baud modem on the back...complete with the acoustic > coupler. Some models contained bubble memory... Oh the memories. My first at home dial-up connection. - Bill ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 19:27:00 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:30:12 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-cmZ60H6QcFvXrHbQ1boc9tQY2lnO5taOtLCXOgUD231PeMjcpp2k2PS/l8lsAahN6aI15vHZ+4xCkhR!VC1hXchrazUUU89p8GkZx1+cDFCjSpw1XJNDFrW6iQchgNtUYNmLfMmlPw0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172419 "Ben Yates" wrote in message news:8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com... > I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character > instead of a BS. Yes, but only if they ran a DEC OS. When we ran VMS on the machine, it used DEL. When we ran UNIX, it used BS. - Bill ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 01:34:50 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082853425 11840732 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172420 Charles Richmond wrote: > DecWriters are contraptions alright...but at least they used > *spools* of ribbon...good old-timey-looking cloth (probably > linen) ribbons that reversed directions at the end. > Of course, when I was a student they changed the ribbons in the terminal-room decwriters very, very seldom. So there were some obvious locally-written hacks $ cat file | reprint -N | lpr where 'reprint' would do precisely that - print the line and throw a carriage return N times before outputting an LF We usually found that anything past 'reprint -6' started making holes in the paper, and by that point you could usually get someone to come and put in a new ribbon ;) Mind you there was also $ lecturenote which would throw a pile of formfeeds - instant scratch paper ;) The decwriter in one student terminal room did once start to smell funny (mind you, the famous 'spodding pit' V/044 was usually fairly rank) - someone had been eating dinner in the room (a no-no) when the approach of one of the technicians was noted. Easiest way to hide the offending cornish pastie was, er, inside the decwriter.... pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### From: andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 25 Apr 2004 01:05:17 GMT Organization: Sun Microsystems Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: vpn-129-156-96-34.emea.sun.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: new-usenet.uk.sun.com 1082855117 25226 129.156.96.34 (25 Apr 2004 01:05:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@new-usenet.uk.sun.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 Apr 2004 01:05:17 GMT X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!carbon.eu.sun.com!new-usenet.uk.sun.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172423 In article <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net>, Charles Richmond writes: > DecWriters are contraptions alright...but at least they used > *spools* of ribbon...good old-timey-looking cloth (probably > linen) ribbons that reversed directions at the end. > > For latter day hardcopy terminals, do *not* forget the TI > Silent 700. It printed on heat-sensative paper (yuk!) and > had a 300 baud modem on the back...complete with the acoustic > coupler. Some models contained bubble memory... There were a number of versions. We used (and sold) a lot of them as system consoles for GEC 4000 series minicomputers (these Silent 700's didn't have the modem). The older ones had a real typewriter style bell in them which went 'ding' when sent a ^G. Later ones had an electronic replacement. We were still using them up to perhaps 1991, but the thermal paper rolls were getting very expensive. There was also a portable version in a polished wooden carry case with an accoustic modem, although ISTR they were actually rather heavy. -- Andrew Gabriel Consultant Software Engineer ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:44:22 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: TCS Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:44:22 -0500 Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.184.183 X-Trace: sv3-1P37C6b5/3kebdDEy+k+kGku7QdtbATMle3OBeMGqafwzNVjuv136JhiXGl70fxnH7dRcOk3f9NyeGg!Dn5K1r6Cjr0NTnEdwCz4BI/NZyirhmpoNssg78eXDxtSS+22Zw2nXM1b+7KZgoWtwdo5yb3jNVFz!lNABrjzbbVEdLSOP7a4HJiiVcg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172425 On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:30:12 -0400, Bill Leary wrote: >"Ben Yates" wrote in message >news:8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com... >> I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character >> instead of a BS. >Yes, but only if they ran a DEC OS. When we ran VMS on the machine, it used >DEL. When we ran UNIX, it used BS. The terminal transmitted a DEL. The vax system transmitted in return a BS;space;BS If a VT1xx terminal recieved a DEL, it'd print a splotch. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 21:06:29 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 22:09:42 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> Lines: 32 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-uEd9Gz1QnYxEt4raWJfAIEpDLMQrH144wVH0krHp0KlmIHqWcaZkDV26EY+7tmZBw8wX7b6Cj1FbGn0!i2LEztpZhnHpLOvqvRUZQBQ4W/Fr4q+jfStp9/kOIreKO6Qiw0b9TpCQEYo= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172427 "TCS" wrote in message news:slrnc8m5vl.i35.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net... > On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:30:12 -0400, Bill Leary wrote: > >"Ben Yates" wrote in message > >news:8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com... > >> I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character > >> instead of a BS. > > >Yes, but only if they ran a DEC OS. When we ran VMS on the machine, it used > >DEL. When we ran UNIX, it used BS. > > The terminal transmitted a DEL. Are we talking about the DECwriter or the VT100 now? My recollection was that, under UNIX, the VT100 sent a BS when we hit BS on the keyboard. Although, now that you've got me thinking, I suppose termcap could have been translating. One of the virtues of being under UNIX was that we got consistent characters no matter what the terminal, and we used a LOT of different terminals, especially for our dial ups. I wrote five or six of them myself for our installation. > The vax system transmitted in return a BS;space;BS > > If a VT1xx terminal recieved a DEL, it'd print a splotch. Yes, I recall that on output. - Bill ###### Message-ID: <408B549C.BF3E4EB6@comcast.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.126.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s51 1082866173 24.1.126.198 (Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:33 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:33 GMT Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 04:09:33 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s51.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172430 Ben Yates wrote: > > "Bill Leary" wrote in message news:... > > wrote in message > > news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. > > > > > > > >The fact that you mention VAX > > > > > > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. > > > > Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 > > attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was thinking > > PDP. > > > > - Bill > > I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character > instead of a BS. I can only name one other "system" that utilized DEL > instead of BS, and it was a computer whose RS232 board used DEL > instead of BS - the TI-99/4A. One of the early programs written for it > was a BS fixer. BS would cause a backspace, but the record would store > the backspace character inline. And since the TI didn't interpret > BS's, you'd have the mistakes, the BSes, and the correct characters. > The record might contain something like: "This is a > misteak(BS)(BS)(BS)ake". > Well, with good ole Unix/Linux, you can use "stty" and take your pick. Of course, this can be set up with your ".login" file so you don't have to remember to do it yourself... -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 24 Apr 2004 23:26:41 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082874401 30623 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2004 06:26:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 06:26:41 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172431 > Refusing to benefit from someone else's experience pretty much guarantees > you will have ample opportunity to relearn the lessons on your own...the > hard way. > Jack Peacock I never made it a point not to ask "a very preliminary/basic question" fearing people will treat as a childish or stupid.But it really hurts when people rather than answering it ( or for the sake "not answering it"),make a fun out of it. The intention of the question was very clear "I would like to hear some real life experience dumb terminals and teletypes" from you. regards, Yogesh ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:33:25 GMT Lines: 24 Message-ID: <408bb13b$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=3Dj7T\K7R8R=I3O8BVgV^P9GIJ778K3GF<>C5OJ=2C6Q9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172446 In article , "Bill Leary" wrote: > wrote in message >news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. >> > >> >The fact that you mention VAX >> >> If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. > >Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 >attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized >to DEC and was thinking PDP. We do try to forget nightmares. If I were one of those liberated activists, I'd point out that those dumb terminals weren't dumb based on all the swearing that I had to do to get the "smart" terminals to act like a TTY. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:35:12 GMT Lines: 40 Message-ID: <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=bk0PaAlDmXiE5Y\GoiDIMo0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9ji0_Olc7`>RmI3O8BVgV^PiGIJ778K3GFl>C5OJ=2C6Qi X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.news2me.com!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172447 In article , "Michael N. LeVine" wrote: >In article , > "Bill Leary" wrote: > >> wrote in message >> news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. >> > > >> > >The fact that you mention VAX >> > >> > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. >> >> Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 >> attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was thinking >> PDP. >> >> - Bill >> >> > >No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. Sigh! Those weren't dumb. Those things had more settings than needed. > .. A family of hard copy terminal's >useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing >each character as it passed. Yup. And they were crap. Nobody liked using them. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:38:26 GMT Lines: 31 Message-ID: <408bb268$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=b9_mUNYIY[AJ]RMI3O8BVgV^PIGIJ778K3GFL>C5OJ=2C6QI X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172448 In article , andrew@cucumber.demon.co.uk (Andrew Gabriel) wrote: >In article <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net>, > Charles Richmond writes: >> DecWriters are contraptions alright...but at least they used >> *spools* of ribbon...good old-timey-looking cloth (probably >> linen) ribbons that reversed directions at the end. >> >> For latter day hardcopy terminals, do *not* forget the TI >> Silent 700. It printed on heat-sensative paper (yuk!) and >> had a 300 baud modem on the back...complete with the acoustic >> coupler. Some models contained bubble memory... > >There were a number of versions. >We used (and sold) a lot of them as system consoles for >GEC 4000 series minicomputers (these Silent 700's didn't >have the modem). The older ones had a real typewriter style >bell in them which went 'ding' when sent a ^G. Later ones >had an electronic replacement. We were still using them up to >perhaps 1991, but the thermal paper rolls were getting very >expensive. There was also a portable version in a polished >wooden carry case with an accoustic modem, although ISTR they >were actually rather heavy. They were heavy. However, I didn't need three men to carry it. I could do it myself. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B16A6.D675D1FF@comcast.net> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:39:50 GMT Lines: 43 Message-ID: <408bb2bc$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=b9_mUNYIY[A>8dadjO>C2A0R]m=BkYWIG:6bU3OT9S9Ji0_Olc7`>RMI3O8BVgV^PIGIJ778K3GFL>C5OJ=2C6QI X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news2.wam.umd.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172449 In article <408B16A6.D675D1FF@comcast.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >"Michael N. LeVine" wrote: >> >> In article , >> "Bill Leary" wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> > news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> > > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. >> > > > >> > > >The fact that you mention VAX >> > > >> > > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. >> > >> > Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 >> > attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was thinking >> > PDP. >> > >> > - Bill >> > >> > >> >> No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. A family of hard copy terminal's >> useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing >> each character as it passed. >> >Since Michael gave that most lucid description...let's see a >show of hands: How many here have *never* seen a DecWriter??? >How many have *never* used a DecWriter??? I would rewrite that last sentence: "How many have *never* voluntarily used a DecWriter?" /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:43:44 GMT Lines: 28 Message-ID: <408bb3a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=42^Nf^P\Wh`mjKjPmAkhZc0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9ji0_Olc7`>RmI3O8BVgV^PiGIJ778K3GFl>C5OJ=2C6Qi X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!peer02.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172450 In article , TCS wrote: >On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:30:12 -0400, Bill Leary wrote: >>"Ben Yates" wrote in message >>news:8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com... >>> I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character >>> instead of a BS. > >>Yes, but only if they ran a DEC OS. When we ran VMS on the machine, it used >>DEL. When we ran UNIX, it used BS. > >The terminal transmitted a DEL. >The vax system transmitted in return a BS;space;BS Sigh! C'mon guys. That transmission sequence depended on what the TTY MODE was set to. > >If a VT1xx terminal recieved a DEL, it'd print a splotch. Then the software didn't know about VT1nn flavors. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:47:57 GMT Lines: 47 Message-ID: <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=?MFh;RVTMA0dWQ;m_UQD]<0R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:i0_Olc7`>R=I3O8BVgV^P9GIJ778K3GF<>C5OJ=2C6Q9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172451 In article <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com>, "Bill Leary" wrote: >"TCS" wrote in message >news:slrnc8m5vl.i35.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net... >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:30:12 -0400, Bill Leary wrote: >> >"Ben Yates" wrote in message >> >news:8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com... >> >> I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character >> >> instead of a BS. >> >> >Yes, but only if they ran a DEC OS. When we ran VMS on the machine, it >used >> >DEL. When we ran UNIX, it used BS. >> >> The terminal transmitted a DEL. > >Are we talking about the DECwriter or the VT100 now? > >My recollection was that, under UNIX, the VT100 sent a BS when we hit BS on >the keyboard. Although, now that you've got me thinking, I suppose termcap >could have been translating. One of the virtues of being under UNIX was >that we got consistent characters no matter what the terminal, and we used a >LOT of different terminals, especially for our dial ups. I wrote five or >six of them myself for our installation. Any, well, most DEC OSes would do the same thing. That's why the "SET TTY type" commands were available (that command looks wrong). > >> The vax system transmitted in return a BS;space;BS >> >> If a VT1xx terminal recieved a DEL, it'd print a splotch. > >Yes, I recall that on output. Yea, well. Unless you had a bit god do a magical incantation on those idiotic terminals, it would do all kinds of nasty things. You had to have about 20 different settings within the terminal set just right and you could the damned thing as a terminal. I could never get parity right. Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <408B549C.BF3E4EB6@comcast.net> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:48:50 GMT Lines: 41 Message-ID: <408bb4d9$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=VgP=WHYMC\RoiIeoEZ=P\T0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9Zi0_Olc7`>R]I3O8BVgV^PYGIJ778K3GF\>C5OJ=2C6QY X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news2.euro.net!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172452 In article <408B549C.BF3E4EB6@comcast.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >Ben Yates wrote: >> >> "Bill Leary" wrote in message news:... >> > wrote in message >> > news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> > > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb terminal. >> > > > >> > > >The fact that you mention VAX >> > > >> > > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. >> > >> > Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 >> > attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was thinking >> > PDP. >> > >> > - Bill >> >> I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character >> instead of a BS. I can only name one other "system" that utilized DEL >> instead of BS, and it was a computer whose RS232 board used DEL >> instead of BS - the TI-99/4A. One of the early programs written for it >> was a BS fixer. BS would cause a backspace, but the record would store >> the backspace character inline. And since the TI didn't interpret >> BS's, you'd have the mistakes, the BSes, and the correct characters. >> The record might contain something like: "This is a >> misteak(BS)(BS)(BS)ake". >> >Well, with good ole Unix/Linux, you can use "stty" and take >your pick. Of course, this can be set up with your ".login" >file so you don't have to remember to do it yourself... > That was also true with VMS and every other OS that was shipped after the hardware shipped. /BAH ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:54:12 GMT Lines: 38 Message-ID: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=UA44T51]>:h8ia00;EaF7`0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9ji0_Olc7`>RmI3O8BVgV^PiGIJ778K3GFl>C5OJ=2C6Qi X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172454 In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >> Refusing to benefit from someone else's experience pretty much guarantees >> you will have ample opportunity to relearn the lessons on your own...the >> hard way. >> Jack Peacock > >I never made it a point not to ask "a very preliminary/basic question" >fearing people will treat as a childish or stupid. Absolutely nobody in this newsgroup treats people who ask basic questions as childish or stupid. Now get that through your head. > ..But it really hurts >when people rather than answering it ( or for the sake "not answering >it"),make a fun out of it. I started correcting your manners when your nose started to run snot. >The intention of the question was very clear "I would like to hear >some real life experience dumb terminals and teletypes" from you. And telling one of those experts, whose experience you claimed you wanted to hear about, that he wasn't invited is not the way to get him to tell you a story. Now, your question produced a hundred posts or more and they talked about TTYs. Everything we say is based on our experience. What the fuck more do you want? An apology to that guy might get you back out of the swamp you walked in. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 25 Apr 04 11:04:00 GMT Lines: 34 Message-ID: <408bb867$0$28920$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=F?mVP_YA9A9HRA4;a?kkA00R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:3]m@J2d@009I3O8BVgV^P9aYL50mc2N=2j_dFm32bNE7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172456 In article <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com>, anoneds@netscape.net (Ben Yates) wrote: >"Bill Leary" wrote in message news:... >> "Ben Yates" wrote in message >> news:8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com... >> > I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character >> > instead of a BS. >> >> Yes, but only if they ran a DEC OS. When we ran VMS on the machine, it used >> DEL. When we ran UNIX, it used BS. >> >> - Bill > >Oh, to have run UNIX on a VAX! Alas, I never worked on a DEC machine >with anything other than VMS! At one point, I tried convincing my >superiors to do it, but they didn't believe me! At least two flavors of Unix was on a VMS price list. > ..I had to show them >through research. Our application was developed on a UNIX box, and the >application used a run-time executable to run the objects - but >sometimes we were bit because of UNIX and VMS differences (file >creation and version #'s comes to mind). That doesn't make sense. oh...are you talking about file generation numbers? I'd like to shoot the VMS guy who called them versions. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: anoneds@netscape.net (Ben Yates) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 25 Apr 2004 05:56:04 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 20 Message-ID: <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.143.236.191 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082897764 22003 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2004 12:56:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:56:04 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172453 "Bill Leary" wrote in message news:... > "Ben Yates" wrote in message > news:8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com... > > I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character > > instead of a BS. > > Yes, but only if they ran a DEC OS. When we ran VMS on the machine, it used > DEL. When we ran UNIX, it used BS. > > - Bill Oh, to have run UNIX on a VAX! Alas, I never worked on a DEC machine with anything other than VMS! At one point, I tried convincing my superiors to do it, but they didn't believe me! I had to show them through research. Our application was developed on a UNIX box, and the application used a run-time executable to run the objects - but sometimes we were bit because of UNIX and VMS differences (file creation and version #'s comes to mind). Ben ###### From: "Gary A. Gorgen" Organization: Tunxis Design Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 27 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.126.247 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s02 1082901991 24.7.126.247 (Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:06:31 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:06:31 GMT Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:06:31 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s02.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172458 Charles Richmond wrote: < snip > > > DecWriters are contraptions alright...but at least they used > *spools* of ribbon...good old-timey-looking cloth (probably > linen) ribbons that reversed directions at the end. > > For latter day hardcopy terminals, do *not* forget the TI > Silent 700. It printed on heat-sensative paper (yuk!) and > had a 300 baud modem on the back...complete with the acoustic > coupler. Some models contained bubble memory... > Don't recall any bubble memory, in the ones I used. Some Silent 700's had dual cassettes. One system I built, the Silent 700 was the only storage. It booted off one, and the other was used for data. -- Gary A. Gorgen | "From ideas to PRODUCTS" tunxis@comcast.net | Tunxis Design Inc. | Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:08:58 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:12:10 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-oJnR0B3x+sUv1Jy87GkpNKucyzhVlE/DqUA+z1r+bpforq5ZfzaohCbKl9YtSUr51ljGi6oWrfmUe0W!Cl6NBM5WoPgr6ZqeLb2AmKmFBumXBM9pHq9r3vM6plf/ny55s7Op8IwjWV8= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!216.196.106.140!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172459 wrote in message news:408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >could have been translating. One of the virtues of being under UNIX was > >that we got consistent characters no matter what the terminal, and we used > > a LOT of different terminals, especially for our dial ups. I wrote five or > >six of them myself for our installation. > > Any, well, most DEC OSes would do the same thing. That's > why the "SET TTY type" commands were available (that command > looks wrong). They kept telling me that, but I could never find any DEC guru who knew the correct options to make it happen, and I used VMS so rarely that it wasn't worth the bother to me to do it. And the "wall of orange" manuals (or was this the "wall of grey" era?) was rather daunting. I wrote the program in C under UNIX, tried to port it to VMS, then gave up (not just because of the Back Space BS) and just gave the sources to the VMS guy. I heard it got it "mostly working," whatever that meant. - Bill ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:21:01 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: TCS Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:21:01 -0500 Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.184.183 X-Trace: sv3-17PXwBF2DPAdcM2s8HJtbUS2+8FqFkQeMXXjxXxC0shHBOaHMd6/XDs1hEYyfVdVo3CPO3u/lppZam1!EUoGygDfZUtXPF/KnDHBD7NEMYa13tp9hzrJk2825+JKLF3G7UFeNRUHHEi7NKW5DL3uXBUcsnIk!elM7cP07PmL7LARvCBk2y2lhUg== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172462 On Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:47:57 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >Yea, well. Unless you had a bit god do a magical incantation >on those idiotic terminals, it would do all kinds of nasty All you had to do is understand what the settings did. IE: if you saw double echo, one was your keystroke being echoed by the terminal and the other echoed by the computer. Turn off local echo and the problem was fixed. If you hit the delete key and saw a "^H" echoed back, then you were sending a character not expected by the computer. VAXen used "DEL". Set the terminal to send a "DEL" and problem solved. Or just reset the terminal to all defaults; do a "SET TERMINAL/TERMINAL_TYPE=VT100" or whatever the DCL was (it's been a while) and problem solved. Remember the fun stuff a vt100 could do if you sent an LED command on a large integer? ESC[154q would turn the terminal bell on and leave it on. Great fun when transmitted to every terminal in a room of 50. ESC[155q would screw up the autorepeat and make the terminal send 60 characters a second. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:29:38 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 10:32:50 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <8YudnaQsTf3PVhbdRVn-gw@comcast.com> Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-8RVcqL5o1hNgzGDIt2hYhLth1lXS3BqiZ4Z1SHPpYqExQvSBWSgs/mRNxeyiPwgrU05sMQf1/W2ZnfO!zTfYXHixhPMQEG5tGs7kb4ybCMBliJ+4CzIpFuM7vLcUHGShhXuQbx5rTpU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.linkpendium.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172463 "Ben Yates" wrote in message news:8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com... > > Yes, but only if they ran a DEC OS. When we ran VMS on the machine, it used > > DEL. When we ran UNIX, it used BS. > > Oh, to have run UNIX on a VAX! We ran the Mount Xinu version. We dealt with them while Bill Joy was there. In fact, I talked to him (he answered the phone) about the system we were going to buy, an 11/785, and he spec'd the machine for me. It was funny (strange) that, for years, people would say something like "Hey, nice system" and I'd say "Yeah, Bill Joy designed it for me" and they'd say "Naw, really?" I told him what we were going to do with it, and he just knocked it off during a fifteen minute conversation. So, I suppose "designed" was a *bit* of an exageration, but "whipped it off" wouldn't have sounded as impressive. :) I never had any reason to disagree with any of the hardware choices he brought up in that conversation. Ran great the whole time we used it, even when we pushed it beyond the scope outlined in that conversation. Even, for that matter, later when we turned it mostly into a file server for the Sun's it ended up being networked with. - Bill ###### From: "lkrupp@pssw.NOSPAM.com.INVALID" <"lkrupp@pssw.NOSPAM.com.INVALID"> Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:58:41 -0600 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <108no8mocb6nqcc@corp.supernews.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, he MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> In-Reply-To: <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 7 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172468 Ben Yates wrote: > Oh, to have run UNIX on a VAX! There was DEC ULTRIX... Louis Krupp ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:25:02 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:25:02 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-ELWa3jxAcPoHNVTEsHq0OqkvWjs7eyWsBI7vuIzqENIxEm1MY6kZLjGpdhAxzMFrUsGKqrEBp+rLvYo!IFd7deQJfXHEZYbsdHr+ZYJbnYidqFs66+Dzk+0r+L3uaG/uiZP78shXyBY6/khW4MGMSuqpIk9t!vxI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172470 "Gary A. Gorgen" wrote in message news:HBPic.19706$YP5.1393282@attbi_s02... > Don't recall any bubble memory, in the ones I used. > Some Silent 700's had dual cassettes. > One system I built, the Silent 700 was the only storage. > It booted off one, and the other was used for data. > HP had the 2640 line of CRT terminals in the 70's; the high end ones had a minicartridge tape drive (actually used one in a casino application). TI, being a maker of bubbles at the time, went HP one better with the bubble memory storage terminal. Hideously expensive and not as useful in hardcopy devices, tho the Silent 700s were cool portable terminals, a real executive status symbol before laptops came along. Jack Peacock ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:36:41 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 09:36:41 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-bgc6EBiD3BnXEx3mnLDUESsnH3TZFl2znCH6abbGfkN00Y/TfBKLiVza103jS+1cUcFyevk2BsGIhN3!MuN7h5CThGPa4C65pQPMoZMONweQgYa56FeqCu2h/wJsAQoMjwBTvELe1zY5wOIkZVoXwnp7Qqhz!9hY= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172471 wrote in message news:408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > .. A family of hard copy terminal's > >useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing > >each character as it passed. > > Yup. And they were crap. Nobody liked using them. > DECWriter Is weren't so great, but the DECWriter II was a coveted replacement for ASR33s. The section I worked in at a research lab was the first to get a brand new DW II. Within days after we had it hooked up people from all over the lab showed up to see it in action. It was fast (30cps), the keyboard was a joy compared to an ASR33, and best of all it was QUIET! A few years later I had an incredible stroke of luck when a installing a new PDP-11/34 system for a customer. It came bundled with a DW II as the console, but the owner told me he wanted to use his existing CRT instead, and to "get rid" of the DECwriter. It wound up in my house and provided many years of service before I traded it for a sat dish. :) Jack Peacock ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B16A6.D675D1FF@comcast.net> <408bb2bc$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: Mike X-Organization: Bridgewater Institute for Advanced Study - Blacksmith Shop Message-ID: <87vfjo6mfd.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> Organization: Bridgewater Institute for Advanced Study - Blacksmith Shop Lines: 15 X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7 Date: 25 Apr 2004 13:40:22 -0300 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.222.77.97 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ca.mci.com X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 1082911077 24.222.77.97 (Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:37:57 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:37:57 EDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!news.uunet.ca!nnrp1.uunet.ca.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172472 > I would rewrite that last sentence: "How many have *never* > voluntarily used a DecWriter?" Not me. You haven't lived until you've used a DECwriter II connected to an Osborne I (CP/M) to dial into a VAX/VMS so you can telnet to a Unix system to read your email. *So* much better than using the acoustic coupler to go straight from the DECwriter to the VAX. :-) -- Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada ###### From: David Powell Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:52:55 +0100 Lines: 58 Message-ID: <6bqn80lomju4uptvn9pc9au3sfb1plcu3e@4ax.com> References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> Reply-To: ddotpowell@icuknet.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: 39.24.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.net (194.153.24.39) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082911957 12249557 I 194.153.24.39 ([161127]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!39.24.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.NET!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172473 In article <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net>, Charles Richmond in alt.folklore.computers wrote: >Bill Leary wrote: >> >> "Michael N. LeVine" wrote in message >> news:mlevinespmfltr-43E102.13163924042004@corp.supernews.com... >> > No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. A family of hard >> > copy terminal's useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the >> > paper printing each character as it passed. >> >> Of course you're correct that these were terminals too. I guess the habit >> runs deep that I never thought of the hardcopy devices as "terminals" in the >> same sense that I though of the tube ones as being. I always thought of >> them as "consoles." >> >> Of the two VAXen we had, one had a DECwriter such as you describe as it's >> primary operator console. The other had, now that you bring it to mind, >> something like a IBM selectric, right down to the golf-ball printing >> element. What a wonder it was to watch it hammer out a message. Even more >> of a wonder when the FE replaced it and didn't quite get the latch secured >> correctly. >> >DecWriters are contraptions alright...but at least they used >*spools* of ribbon...good old-timey-looking cloth (probably >linen) ribbons that reversed directions at the end. > "4018 NYLON LA-30 DECwriter 36-10558 Digital Equipment Corp." Still got a blue cardboard box of ribbons in my desk drawer. The ribbon spools have been rewound with wirewrap, and there's sufficient room in the corners for a hand wrap, unwrap and cutter tools. The spools are about quarter full, after about 30 years, guess there's enough left to see me out. Dammit, it takes me two minutes of peer and stab to thread the wire into the tool nowadays. Remember that slam-bang-buzz-zing- buzzzzzzz noise as the smoke escaped from the carriage motor drivers? >For latter day hardcopy terminals, do *not* forget the TI >Silent 700. It printed on heat-sensative paper (yuk!) and >had a 300 baud modem on the back...complete with the acoustic >coupler. Some models contained bubble memory... Came out about the same time as the LA36. A customer wanted one as a log terminal for a real time data logger. For his specified logs, we calculated that it would consume its purchase price in paper every p months, (p, a small positive real.) He bought LA36. Regards, David P. ###### From: David Powell Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:52:56 +0100 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> Reply-To: ddotpowell@icuknet.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: 39.24.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.net (194.153.24.39) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1082911958 12249557 I 194.153.24.39 ([161127]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!39.24.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.NET!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172474 In article <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com>, "Bill Leary" in alt.folklore.computers wrote: >"TCS" wrote in message >news:slrnc8m5vl.i35.The-Central-Scrutinizer@linux.client.comcast.net... >> >> If a VT1xx terminal recieved a DEL, it'd print a splotch. > >Yes, I recall that on output. > Only if something replaced the DEL char by splotch char. VT100s ignore DEL in the input stream, AFAICR, it's treated the same as NUL, and can be used as a "fill" char for sync. Regards, David P. ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 25 Apr 2004 11:01:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 46 Message-ID: References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1082916090 9117 127.0.0.1 (25 Apr 2004 18:01:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 18:01:30 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172478 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... > In article , > ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: > >> Refusing to benefit from someone else's experience pretty much > guarantees > >> you will have ample opportunity to relearn the lessons on your own...the > >> hard way. > >> Jack Peacock > > > >I never made it a point not to ask "a very preliminary/basic question" > >fearing people will treat as a childish or stupid. > > Absolutely nobody in this newsgroup treats people who ask > basic questions as childish or stupid. Now get that through > your head. > > > ..But it really hurts > >when people rather than answering it ( or for the sake "not answering > >it"),make a fun out of it. > > I started correcting your manners when your nose started to run > snot. > > >The intention of the question was very clear "I would like to hear > >some real life experience dumb terminals and teletypes" from you. > > And telling one of those experts, whose experience you claimed > you wanted to hear about, that he wasn't invited is not the > way to get him to tell you a story. When someone is saying "don't bother me",what type of reply do you expect from me.I would have appreciated had he first shared his experience and then would have said "that". >Now, your question produced > a hundred posts or more and they talked about TTYs. Everything > we say is based on our experience. I am really enjoying reading the experiences of others and really thankfull to all of those who contributed positively. And this is not the issue as far as this "subthread" is concerend.Don't make my reply general. >What the fuck more do you >want? > An apology to that guy might get you back out of the swamp > you walked in. OK.From my side I am hereby raising a "White flag". ###### From: see.sig@for.addy (Victor Eijkhout) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:59:52 -0600 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 20 Message-ID: <1gct3od.eimfai1d9375oN%see.sig@for.addy> References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-713.newsdawg.com User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.3.3) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!canoe.uoregon.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!see.sig Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172490 Bill Leary wrote: > > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. > > Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 > attached to it. I see no contradiction. Around 1980 I used a VAX 11/780 from very blue ADM3a terminals. The faculty had VT100s (actually CITOH-101), us students used ADMs. I remember unscrewing the little panel on them to set the dip switches on my terminal to 75baud so that I could see what on earth the cursor control in my editor was doing. That is, I was writing the full screen editor for an interpreter (for Elan), and something was going haywire. V. -- email: lastname at cs utk edu homepage: cs utk edu tilde lastname ###### From: "Michael N. LeVine" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:44:51 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 35 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!mlevinespmfltr Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172492 In article , TCS wrote: > On Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:47:57 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > > >Yea, well. Unless you had a bit god do a magical incantation > >on those idiotic terminals, it would do all kinds of nasty > All you had to do is understand what the settings did. > > IE: if you saw double echo, one was your keystroke being echoed by the > terminal and the other echoed by the computer. Turn off local echo and > the problem was fixed. > > If you hit the delete key and saw a "^H" echoed back, then you were sending > a character not expected by the computer. VAXen used "DEL". Set the terminal > to send a "DEL" and problem solved. > > Or just reset the terminal to all defaults; do a > "SET TERMINAL/TERMINAL_TYPE=VT100" or whatever the DCL was (it's been a while) > and problem solved. > > Remember the fun stuff a vt100 could do if you sent an LED command on a large > integer? ESC[154q would turn the terminal bell on and leave it on. Great > fun when transmitted to every terminal in a room of 50. > ESC[155q would screw up the autorepeat and make the terminal send 60 characters > a second. More obscure was to send an Control-S to a VT-xxx terminal and watch the unsuspecting user try and figure out why nothing was happening. -- Michael LeVine - mlevine@redshift.com "Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc ###### Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:28:57 -0700 From: Lars Poulsen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> In-Reply-To: <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 16 Message-ID: <408c900a$0$72838@news.impulse.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.154.106.6 X-Trace: azure.impulse.net 1082953738 72838 207.154.106.6 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!64.42.15.2!HSNX.atgi.net!sienna.impulse.net!azure.impulse.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172501 Brian Inglis wrote: > If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment starting > in column 1: > /* this is the start and end of the program */ It's been twenty years, but IIRC, the solution to that is to use //PLI.SYSIN DD DATA on the line before the program instead of the usual //PLI.SYSIN DD * Isn't it? -- / Lars Poulsen +1-805-569-5277 http://www.beagle-ears.com/lars/ 125 South Ontare Rd, Santa Barbara, CA 93105 USA lars@beagle-ears.com ###### Sender: CStacy@BOHR Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> <408bb867$0$28920$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) Message-ID: Lines: 6 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:43:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.163.245.45 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny03.gnilink.net 1082958205 68.163.245.45 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:43:25 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 01:43:25 EDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrdny03.gnilink.net.POSTED!8b1f9295!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172504 >>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 04 11:04:00 GMT, jmfbahciv ("jmfbahciv") writes: jmfbahciv> talking about file generation numbers? I'd like to shoot jmfbahciv> the VMS guy who called them versions. Why? ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 21 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:14:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1082960041 24.71.223.147 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:14:01 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:14:01 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172506 On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:25:58 -0400 in alt.folklore.computers, "Bill Leary" wrote: >"Charles Richmond" wrote in message >news:408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net... >> For latter day hardcopy terminals, do *not* forget the TI >> Silent 700. It printed on heat-sensative paper (yuk!) and >> had a 300 baud modem on the back...complete with the acoustic >> coupler. Some models contained bubble memory... > >Oh the memories. My first at home dial-up connection. Ditto -- dial-in to work -- the Portable version hopefully? Only about 20lb as compared to the about 50lb desktop version with dual cassettes. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### Message-ID: <408CC4D5.B9DEA348@comcast.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.126.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s03 1082960441 24.1.126.198 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:20:41 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:20:41 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:20:41 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.glorb.com!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s03.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172507 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > > In article , > "Michael N. LeVine" wrote: > > > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > > > .. A family of hard copy terminal's > >useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing > >each character as it passed. > > Yup. And they were crap. Nobody liked using them. > Oh, me, me, me!!! I *liked* using DecWriters. For APL, a DecWriter was very good IMHO. I loved the little dinky APL font it used. Also, playing text-based games at 300 baud has a certain appeal to it...that is lost when the text goes whizzing by at 19,200 baud... -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Message-ID: <408CC581.7BE3F41D@comcast.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 33 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.126.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s01 1082960613 24.1.126.198 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:23:33 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:23:33 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:23:33 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.glorb.com!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s01.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172508 Jack Peacock wrote: > > wrote in message > news:408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > > > .. A family of hard copy terminal's > > >useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing > > >each character as it passed. > > > > Yup. And they were crap. Nobody liked using them. > > > DECWriter Is weren't so great, but the DECWriter II was a coveted > replacement for ASR33s. The section I worked in at a research lab was the > first to get a brand new DW II. Within days after we had it hooked up > people from all over the lab showed up to see it in action. It was fast > (30cps), the keyboard was a joy compared to an ASR33, and best of all it was > QUIET! > > A few years later I had an incredible stroke of luck when a installing a new > PDP-11/34 system for a customer. It came bundled with a DW II as the > console, but the owner told me he wanted to use his existing CRT instead, > and to "get rid" of the DECwriter. It wound up in my house and provided > many years of service before I traded it for a sat dish. :) > My sad story: Bill Gunshannon once *gave* away a brand new DecWriter, still packaged in the plastic wrap from the factory. The only trick was...you had to go to Pennsylvania to get the thing. So I lost my chance... -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <408c900a$0$72838@news.impulse.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 24 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 06:29:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1082960941 24.71.223.147 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:29:01 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 00:29:01 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!167.206.3.103.MISMATCH!news3.optonline.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172509 On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:28:57 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, Lars Poulsen wrote: >Brian Inglis wrote: >> If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment starting >> in column 1: >> /* this is the start and end of the program */ > >It's been twenty years, but IIRC, the solution to that >is to use > //PLI.SYSIN DD DATA >on the line before the program instead of the usual > //PLI.SYSIN DD * >Isn't it? It's been about a decade, but ISTR you also needed to specify an alternate EOF delimiter, like Unix inline input data << 'EOF': //SYSIN DD DATA,DLM='EOF' -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 04:37:32 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B1784.57BC49CE@comcast.net> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 05:40:48 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-HiqN+5tp0mDwsIuvzMF/QRNBDEC9+fPc/SDPa+PwA+mwVQlRuVAu1H1j6AvUO5ACX/c369Xg+wRgzfW!Q5vDUp/V03kmGpXstvE7oIw/Y6AGXKEvKoY+KQ0U5+mLkHqZ1zKQaIYKvy4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172511 "Brian Inglis" wrote in message news:es9p805jt4mukut4dq0tm6l1hotl6regfn@4ax.com... > >Oh the memories. My first at home dial-up connection. > > Ditto -- dial-in to work -- the Portable version hopefully? > Only about 20lb as compared to the about 50lb desktop version with > dual cassettes. I guess so. I don't recall there being a desk-top version, so I guess I never saw one. This thing was maybe a foot wide by four inches high (closed) by fifteen inches long. Or there abouts. It was in the "lugable" range for weight. Carrying it from the car to the house, up one flight of stairs was no problem. Much further would have been annoying. When I stopped at the landing to talk to a neighbor, I definitely put it down. - Bill ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408CC4D5.B9DEA348@comcast.net> Organization: me From: Morten Reistad X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: mrr@via.reistad.priv.no (Morten Reistad) Message-ID: Lines: 39 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:06:20 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.111.165.173 X-Complaints-To: abuse@chello.no X-Trace: amstwist00 1082975415 80.111.165.173 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:30:15 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:30:15 MET DST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!amsnews04.chello.com!amstwist00.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172513 In article <408CC4D5.B9DEA348@comcast.net>, Charles Richmond wrote: >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >> >> In article , >> "Michael N. LeVine" wrote: >> > >> > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] >> > >> > .. A family of hard copy terminal's >> >useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing >> >each character as it passed. >> >> Yup. And they were crap. Nobody liked using them. >> >Oh, me, me, me!!! I *liked* using DecWriters. For APL, a >DecWriter was very good IMHO. I loved the little dinky APL >font it used. Also, playing text-based games at 300 baud >has a certain appeal to it...that is lost when the text goes >whizzing by at 19,200 baud... This was one part of being student assistant to the profs that I had forgotten all about. The printout management. I had a DecWriter 2, later an LA120 in my little anteroom used as a student office; and generated printouts for the models. You also had to GENERATE the printout to look good, the profs were hopeless at such tasks. But it was an immensly rewarding job to take their ideas ond convert them to working code; where we could do some simulation testing of these ideas. 2/3rds of these ideas never went any further; as they were thrown out. At first I got the Decwriter as the surplus noone else wanted, as the junior user. But I grew pretty fond of it. You could do an immense amount of "Programming" with escape sequences. -- mrr ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 04 10:08:19 GMT Lines: 47 Message-ID: <408cfce5$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=TQP1;KGSio[jEIiXhk\0B]0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZZTb7mJ`SSaUI3O8BVgV^PY\68DB:a4, "Bill Leary" wrote: > wrote in message >news:408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> >could have been translating. One of the virtues of being under UNIX was >> >that we got consistent characters no matter what the terminal, and we >used >> > a LOT of different terminals, especially for our dial ups. I wrote five >or >> >six of them myself for our installation. >> >> Any, well, most DEC OSes would do the same thing. That's >> why the "SET TTY type" commands were available (that command >> looks wrong). > >They kept telling me that, but I could never find any DEC guru who knew the >correct options to make it happen, and I used VMS so rarely that it wasn't >worth the bother to me to do it. I'd always SET TTY TTY. That defaulted to dumb terminal mode. So you don't get all that fancy-shmancy graphics pizzazz. Who needs it if you need to get Task A done in three commands. Note this not the VMS command. > .. And the "wall of orange" manuals (or was >this the "wall of grey" era?) was rather daunting. I wrote the program in C >under UNIX, tried to port it to VMS, then gave up (not just because of the >Back Space BS) and just gave the sources to the VMS guy. I heard it got it >"mostly working," whatever that meant. CDO would "convert" our SYSDPY to the latest, greatest terminal gear that would show up. Getting a "smart" TTY to display required a bit god who had a month-long attention span. JMF and TW didn't have that. I sure didn't. I hated smart terminals. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 04 10:18:01 GMT Lines: 82 Message-ID: <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=YGNb`^52X:J>_ENj3cBN@B0R]m=BkYWIG:6bU3OT9S9JZTb7mJ`SSaEI3O8BVgV^PI\68DB:a4, ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... >> In article , >> ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >> >> Refusing to benefit from someone else's experience pretty much >> guarantees >> >> you will have ample opportunity to relearn the lessons on your own...the >> >> hard way. >> >> Jack Peacock >> > >> >I never made it a point not to ask "a very preliminary/basic question" >> >fearing people will treat as a childish or stupid. >> >> Absolutely nobody in this newsgroup treats people who ask >> basic questions as childish or stupid. Now get that through >> your head. >> >> > ..But it really hurts >> >when people rather than answering it ( or for the sake "not answering >> >it"),make a fun out of it. >> >> I started correcting your manners when your nose started to run >> snot. >> >> >The intention of the question was very clear "I would like to hear >> >some real life experience dumb terminals and teletypes" from you. >> >> And telling one of those experts, whose experience you claimed >> you wanted to hear about, that he wasn't invited is not the >> way to get him to tell you a story. >When someone is saying "don't bother me",what type of reply do you >expect from me. I expect you to not bother him or correct the behaviour that is bothering him. Correcting the behaviour is the correct thing to do because I'm also having problems reading your ASCII. > ..I would have appreciated had he first shared his >experience and then would have said "that". Bullshit. He has a LIFETIME of experience. Why should he waste time on you who are rude and can't write worth shit? And Michael, the other one you drooled at, didn't say anything nasty, condescending or stupid. > >>Now, your question produced >> a hundred posts or more and they talked about TTYs. Everything >> we say is based on our experience. > >I am really enjoying reading the experiences of others and really >thankfull to all of those who contributed positively. >And this is not the issue as far as this "subthread" is >concerend.Don't make my reply general. This subthread is an attempt to train you in basic netiquette. If you are indeed as interested as you claim, you will be asking more questions. If you expect courtesy and answers, then you had better learn how not to annoy or piss off the bit gods whose brains you wish to pick. >>What the fuck more do you >>want? >> An apology to that guy might get you back out of the swamp >> you walked in. >OK.From my side I am hereby raising a "White flag". It doesn't no good to raise a white flag to me nor to the guy who was so "rude" to you. Changing the behaviour that is annoying people is what we expect in this newsgroup. That's one of reasons this newsgroup has a high S/N ratio. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> <408bb867$0$28920$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 04 10:23:07 GMT Lines: 24 Message-ID: <408d005e$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=74j=MA5G0liZ3CHe^dQiAi0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jZTb7mJ`SSaeI3O8BVgV^Pi\68DB:a4, cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 04 11:04:00 GMT, jmfbahciv ("jmfbahciv") writes: > > jmfbahciv> talking about file generation numbers? I'd like to shoot > jmfbahciv> the VMS guy who called them versions. > >Why? Because DEC already had a hard and fast definition of "version" and it had to do with software patching revisions, not editing revisions, where editing means what it used to mean: the act of getting a change into a file containing a bunch of ASCII characters. This implies that it may take five edits to get one change into that file, correctly [emoticon recalling how many edits it took to get the bells to ring when TOPS-10 crashed]. I didn't even like the TOPS-20 noun, generations, although it was a better choice than version. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 26 Apr 2004 10:27:50 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <408c900a$0$72838@news.impulse.net> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1082975270 27094 134.117.136.48 (26 Apr 2004 10:27:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Apr 2004 10:27:50 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!HSNX.atgi.net!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172512 Brian Inglis (Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.Invalid) writes: > On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 21:28:57 -0700 in alt.folklore.computers, Lars > Poulsen wrote: > >>Brian Inglis wrote: >>> If you want a bad IBM punch card sequence, try a PL/I comment starting >>> in column 1: >>> /* this is the start and end of the program */ >> >>It's been twenty years, but IIRC, the solution to that >>is to use >> //PLI.SYSIN DD DATA >>on the line before the program instead of the usual >> //PLI.SYSIN DD * >>Isn't it? > > It's been about a decade, but ISTR you also needed to specify an > alternate EOF delimiter, like Unix inline input data << 'EOF': > //SYSIN DD DATA,DLM='EOF' //ddname DD DATA,DLM=$$ was my favourite. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <1gct3od.eimfai1d9375oN%see.sig@for.addy> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 04 10:30:03 GMT Lines: 20 Message-ID: <408d01fd$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=7f5NegWn`[Yg=nO4DTIhYT0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZZTb7mJ`SSaUI3O8BVgV^PY\68DB:a4, see.sig@for.addy (Victor Eijkhout) wrote: >Bill Leary wrote: > >> > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. >> >> Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a VT52 >> attached to it. > >I see no contradiction. Huh? 52s weren't "dumb" terminals but they were the best to use if you didn't want them to be smart. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 20 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:58:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.102.87 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news1.nokia.com 1082977115 172.22.102.87 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:58:35 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:58:35 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.tpinternet.pl!news-stoc.telia.net!news-stoa.telia.net!telia.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172516 Michael N. LeVine wrote: > TCS wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:47:57 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > More obscure was to send an Control-S to a VT-xxx terminal and > watch the unsuspecting user try and figure out why nothing was happening. An Xterm will do just fine, thank you. Or any of the fancier graphical terminal emulators that come with the typical Linux desktop nowadays. Usually it's that they manage to hit Control-S instead of Shift-s and then wonder why the thing freezes ... and ask for help. Then they proceed to forget the whole thing, and again hit Control instead of Shift and ... -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 43 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:58:35 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.102.87 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news1.nokia.com 1082977115 172.22.102.87 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:58:35 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:58:35 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!surfnet.nl!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172517 In article <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com>, Ben Yates wrote: > I used VAX as an example of a system that used the DEL character > instead of a BS. I can only name one other "system" that utilized DEL > instead of BS, and it was a computer whose RS232 board used DEL > instead of BS - the TI-99/4A. One of the early programs written for it > was a BS fixer. BS would cause a backspace, but the record would store > the backspace character inline. And since the TI didn't interpret > BS's, you'd have the mistakes, the BSes, and the correct characters. > The record might contain something like: "This is a > misteak(BS)(BS)(BS)ake". Well, actually, that can still happen. At least when the user manages to store inline backspaces in an important configuration file, and the application uses them as-is ... but the usual tools for editing and looking at the file do end up interpreting them. Oh well ... after the symptom description, start vi and ":set list" ... > It used DEL similar to the VAX and DEC terminals, in that when the > RS232 was open in ECho mode, you could send a DEL for each character > to delete, it would echo it (it didn't use "\"'s), and you could issue > a ctrl-R and the RS232 would echo the line back to you. And this still doesn't work everywhere and isn't POSIX but can be expected to work on Linux and BSD IIRC, but not on all flavors of commercial UNIX. > So, you could type "This is a misteak(DEL)k(DEL)a(DEL)eake" and CTRL-R > would then show: > "This is a mistake" and that is what the record would contain at that > point. Very useful in many situations, especially if your terminal emulator isn't that good. -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 04 11:01:06 GMT Lines: 25 Message-ID: <408d0944$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=YbG5?V:7K^DClM9QP8Z<;D0R]m=BkYWIG:6bU3OT9S9JZTb7mJ`SSaEI3O8BVgV^PI\68DB:a4, TCS wrote: >On Sun, 25 Apr 04 10:47:57 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > >>Yea, well. Unless you had a bit god do a magical incantation >>on those idiotic terminals, it would do all kinds of nasty >All you had to do is understand what the settings did. > >IE: if you saw double echo, one was your keystroke being echoed by the >terminal and the other echoed by the computer. Turn off local echo and >the problem was fixed. Oh, honey. [wailing emoticon here] I never got that far. You had to have a "working" terminal before setting host and logging in. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408B16A6.D675D1FF@comcast.net> <408bb2bc$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <87vfjo6mfd.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Mon, 26 Apr 04 11:03:07 GMT Lines: 17 Message-ID: <408d09bd$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=>mmUW_belXY2g]^WAE3OTV0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZZTb7mJ`SSaUI3O8BVgV^PY\68DB:a4, Mike wrote: > >> I would rewrite that last sentence: "How many have *never* >> voluntarily used a DecWriter?" > >Not me. > >You haven't lived until you've used a DECwriter II connected to an >Osborne I (CP/M) to dial into a VAX/VMS so you can telnet to a Unix >system to read your email. *So* much better than using the acoustic >coupler to go straight from the DECwriter to the VAX. :-) You would have loved the patch panels that the -10 group used to "connect" to a system in the olden days. /BAH ###### From: Dave Daniels Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 14:17:39 +0100 Message-ID: <4ca52e3f1fdave_daniels@argonet.co.uk> References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> User-Agent: Pluto/3.03g (RISC-OS/5.05) NewsHound/1.43-32-pre2 Organization: None Lines: 11 NNTP-Posting-Date: 26 Apr 2004 17:08:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 1Cust117.tnt14.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net X-Trace: 1082999307 news-text.dial.pipex.com 19418 62.188.143.117:49257 X-Complaints-To: abuse@uk.uu.net Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!195.129.110.21.MISMATCH!bnewsfeed00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsinpeer01.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewspost00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172566 In article , Pete Fenelon wrote: > Although the high point was playing a version of Space Invaders that > printed the whole game out on a new page every time something moved - > turned it into a strategy game, really ;) Like the CMS space invaders game driven by PF keys on a 3270 screen. Dave Daniels ###### From: Patrick Scheible Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 26 Apr 2004 09:35:45 -0700 Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie Message-ID: References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cache-Post-Path: yasure!unknown@cascadia.drizzle.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 42 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172561 jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: > In article , > "Michael N. LeVine" wrote: > >In article , > > "Bill Leary" wrote: > > > >> wrote in message > >> news:408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >> > >Not if you're talking about a "Glass Teletype" level of dumb > terminal. > >> > > > >> > >The fact that you mention VAX > >> > > >> > If he's saying VAX, he's not talking about dumb terminals at all. > >> > >> Good point. I don't recall ever using a VAX with anything less than a > VT52 > >> attached to it. I think I subconciously generalized to DEC and was > thinking > >> PDP. > >> > >> - Bill > >> > >> > > > >No - the early VAXen did have DECwriters. > > Sigh! Those weren't dumb. Those things had more > settings than needed. > > > > .. A family of hard copy terminal's > >useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing > >each character as it passed. > > Yup. And they were crap. Nobody liked using them. All depends on what you were comparing them to. Better than a teletype... -- Patrick ###### Sender: CStacy@BOHR Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> <408bb867$0$28920$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408d005e$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) Message-ID: Lines: 34 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:52:20 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.163.245.45 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1082998340 68.163.245.45 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:52:20 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 12:52:20 EDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!8b1f9295!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172563 >>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 04 10:23:07 GMT, jmfbahciv ("jmfbahciv") writes: jmfbahciv> In article , jmfbahciv> cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 04 11:04:00 GMT, jmfbahciv ("jmfbahciv") writes: >> jmfbahciv> talking about file generation numbers? I'd like to shoot jmfbahciv> the VMS guy who called them versions. >> >> Why? jmfbahciv> Because DEC already had a hard and fast definition of "version" jmfbahciv> and it had to do with software patching revisions, not editing jmfbahciv> revisions, where editing means what it used to mean: the act jmfbahciv> of getting a change into a file containing a bunch of ASCII jmfbahciv> characters. This implies that it may take five edits to get jmfbahciv> one change into that file, correctly [emoticon recalling how jmfbahciv> many edits it took to get the bells to ring when TOPS-10 jmfbahciv> crashed]. jmfbahciv> I didn't even like the TOPS-20 noun, generations, although jmfbahciv> it was a better choice than version. Why not called an editing revision something like "editing revision", and call program versions "program versions", and source management branches "branches". The system from which TOPS-20 took the feature also had all those things; but when you wrote a new numbered version of a file out, it was simply called a "file version" and there was never any confusion. Suggesting that the word "version" be reduced to always refer to only one thing seems arbitrary to me, and confusing a file with a document revision number or a program version just seems like imprecise thinking. ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 26 Apr 2004 11:10:17 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 79 Message-ID: References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083003017 7061 127.0.0.1 (26 Apr 2004 18:10:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:10:17 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172569 >>I started correcting your manners when your nose started to run >> snot. Thanks but this service of yours of "teaching to correct the manners" is not required.I am only intersted in technical discussion.And I am making my best attempt to discuss in whichever neat and clean language I can.And if you are desperately interested in teaching mannerism , go and start a new group. > >> >The intention of the question was very clear "I would like to hear > >> >some real life experience dumb terminals and teletypes" from you. > >> > >> And telling one of those experts, whose experience you claimed > >> you wanted to hear about, that he wasn't invited is not the > >> way to get him to tell you a story. > >When someone is saying "don't bother me",what type of reply do you > >expect from me. > > I expect you to not bother him or correct the behaviour that > is bothering him. Correcting the behaviour is the correct > thing to do because I'm also having problems reading your > ASCII. There is nothing wrong in my behaviour.I just reatcte to his commnets.AnD iF yOu hAvE A pRobLeM In rEaDiNg mY ASCII tHeN I cAn'T hElP.Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since this is a open group and various people will make honest attempts by posting their question in whichever way they can phrase it in.So rather than wasting your time in teaching each and every one how to post the message please concentrate only on the technical part of it. > > ..I would have appreciated had he first shared his > >experience and then would have said "that". > > Bullshit. He has a LIFETIME of experience. Why should he > waste time on you who are rude and can't write worth shit? > And Michael, the other one you drooled at, didn't say anything > nasty, condescending or stupid. Now again you are reacting only to the half part of the story.I was never rude and when someone is "making an intentional point of neglecting you",the reaction of mine was but obvious. > >>Now, your question produced > >> a hundred posts or more and they talked about TTYs. Everything > >> we say is based on our experience. > > > >I am really enjoying reading the experiences of others and really > >thankfull to all of those who contributed positively. > >And this is not the issue as far as this "subthread" is > >concerend.Don't make my reply general. > > This subthread is an attempt to train you in basic netiquette. LOL > If you are indeed as interested as you claim, you will be asking > more questions. If you expect courtesy and answers, then you > had better learn how not to annoy or piss off the bit gods whose > brains you wish to pick. A shear stupidity!!!! Its not necessary to ask the question to this group only.I am taking best advantage of usenet and posted many questions to the related groups and getting positive feedback. > >>What the fuck more do you > >>want? Now you should better mind about your foul language. > >> An apology to that guy might get you back out of the swamp > >> you walked in. > >OK.From my side I am hereby raising a "White flag". > > It doesn't no good to raise a white flag to me nor to the > guy who was so "rude" to you. Changing the behaviour > that is annoying people is what we expect in this newsgroup. > That's one of reasons this newsgroup has a high S/N ratio. .................................................. ................................................... > /BAH > > > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Message-ID: <408D74CA.5F37CAF2@comcast.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408CC4D5.B9DEA348@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.126.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s03 1083005485 24.1.126.198 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:51:25 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:51:25 GMT Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 18:51:25 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!neupina.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s03.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172573 Morten Reistad wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > At first I got the Decwriter as the surplus noone else wanted, as > the junior user. But I grew pretty fond of it. You could do an > immense amount of "Programming" with escape sequences. > As a "touch typist", I love the DecWriter keyboard. IMHO it is the best keyboard, except for *maybe* the IBM Selectric keyboard. However, the Selectric springs usually "fight back" too hard... -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### From: "David Wade" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:52:35 +0100 Lines: 34 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> <1082765624.22558@teapot.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.168.51.233 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083012757 13781865 I 81.168.51.233 ([40235]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!81.168.51.233!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172582 "Rupert Pigott" wrote in message news:1082765624.22558@teapot.planet.gong... > Don Chiasson wrote: > > "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote in message > > news:c6c37b$edu$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > > > >>"Charlie Gibbs" (cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid) writes: > >> > >>>DWIN has been discontinued due to lack of customer demand. > >>>It's been replaced by DWIS (short for DWISNWID). > >> > >> WAIT FOR IT! I'll figure it out eventually, after supper. > > > > > > Do What I Say Not What I Do ? (I just ate.) > > > > The LISP community started the DWIM thing, but after finding it > > did not always work, so the next step was DWRIM - Do What I > > Really Mean. > > The problem is : That still requires a number of inconvienient > pre-requisites, such as : > 1) requirements analysis has been done and is correct. > 2) you have bothered to read the requirements. > 3) you understand the requirements. > > DWIN, is far safer. :) > > > Cheers, > Rupert ###### From: "David Wade" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 21:54:20 +0100 Lines: 40 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> <1082765624.22558@teapot.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.168.51.233 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083012862 13500032 I 81.168.51.233 ([40235]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!81.168.51.233!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172583 "Rupert Pigott" wrote in message news:1082765624.22558@teapot.planet.gong... > Don Chiasson wrote: > > "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote in message > > news:c6c37b$edu$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > > > >>"Charlie Gibbs" (cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid) writes: > >> > >>>DWIN has been discontinued due to lack of customer demand. > >>>It's been replaced by DWIS (short for DWISNWID). > >> > >> WAIT FOR IT! I'll figure it out eventually, after supper. > > > > > > Do What I Say Not What I Do ? (I just ate.) > > > > The LISP community started the DWIM thing, but after finding it > > did not always work, so the next step was DWRIM - Do What I > > Really Mean. > > The problem is : That still requires a number of inconvienient > pre-requisites, such as : > 1) requirements analysis has been done and is correct. > 2) you have bothered to read the requirements. > 3) you understand the requirements. > Does any one have a copy of the cartoon about designing the swing. The one that shows each stage of the project, e.g. "As the analyst saw it", "As the programmers coded it" ending finally with "What the user really wanted" > DWIN, is far safer. :) > > > Cheers, > Rupert ###### From: rhn@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:15:37 +0000 (UTC) Organization: a2i network Lines: 12 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: mauve.rahul.net X-Trace: blue.rahul.net 1083017737 20147 66.237.72.25 (26 Apr 2004 22:15:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: support@rahul.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 22:15:37 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: rhn@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!wasp.rahul.net!blue.rahul.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172584 Where did the designation or term "dumb terminal" come from? It seems doubtful that anyone would use such a term unless they were trying to invent a marketing plan for some new-fangled "smart" terminal. Or was it to differentiate early mechanical teletype consoles from "real" computer front panels with impressive displays of das blinkenlights? IMHO. YMMV. -- Ron Nicholson rhn AT nicholson DOT com http://www.nicholson.com/rhn/ #include // only my own opinions, etc. ###### From: Elliott Roper Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:05:54 +0100 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <270420040005540935%nospam@yrl.co.uk> Reply-To: Elliott Roper References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: Thoth/1.7.2 (Carbon/OS X) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 15 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!newsfeed.stanford.edu!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!nospam Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172586 In article , Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. wrote: > Where did the designation or term "dumb terminal" come from? > > It seems doubtful that anyone would use such a term unless they were > trying to invent a marketing plan for some new-fangled "smart" terminal. > Or was it to differentiate early mechanical teletype consoles from "real" > computer front panels with impressive displays of das blinkenlights? I thought it was how you pronounced ADM3 -- I thought I would be the last on earth to mangle my e-mail address. fsnospam$elliott$$ ###### From: "NoSpam" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Lines: 89 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 286faaf7d71ee6bdf09a806402265728 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1083023716 286faaf7d71ee6bdf09a806402265728 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:55:16 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:55:16 GMT Organization: AT&T Worldnet Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:55:17 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172589 "yogesh" wrote in message news:f88a27e4.0404261010.4dc1748d@posting.google.com... > >>I started correcting your manners when your nose started to run > >> snot. > Thanks but this service of yours of "teaching to correct the manners" > is not required.I am only intersted in technical discussion.And I am > making my best attempt to discuss in whichever neat and clean language > I can.And if you are desperately interested in teaching mannerism , go > and start a new group. > > >> >The intention of the question was very clear "I would like to hear > > >> >some real life experience dumb terminals and teletypes" from you. > > >> > > >> And telling one of those experts, whose experience you claimed > > >> you wanted to hear about, that he wasn't invited is not the > > >> way to get him to tell you a story. > > >When someone is saying "don't bother me",what type of reply do you > > >expect from me. > > > > I expect you to not bother him or correct the behaviour that > > is bothering him. Correcting the behaviour is the correct > > thing to do because I'm also having problems reading your > > ASCII. > There is nothing wrong in my behaviour.I just reatcte to his > commnets.AnD iF yOu hAvE A pRobLeM In rEaDiNg mY ASCII tHeN I cAn'T > hElP.Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since > this is a open group and various people will make honest attempts by > posting their question in whichever way they can phrase it in.So > rather than wasting your time in teaching each and every one how to > post the message please concentrate only on the technical part of it. > > > ..I would have appreciated had he first shared his > > >experience and then would have said "that". > > > > Bullshit. He has a LIFETIME of experience. Why should he > > waste time on you who are rude and can't write worth shit? > > And Michael, the other one you drooled at, didn't say anything > > nasty, condescending or stupid. > Now again you are reacting only to the half part of the story.I was > never rude and when someone is "making an intentional point of > neglecting you",the reaction of mine was but obvious. > > > >>Now, your question produced > > >> a hundred posts or more and they talked about TTYs. Everything > > >> we say is based on our experience. > > > > > >I am really enjoying reading the experiences of others and really > > >thankfull to all of those who contributed positively. > > >And this is not the issue as far as this "subthread" is > > >concerend.Don't make my reply general. > > > > This subthread is an attempt to train you in basic netiquette. > LOL > > > If you are indeed as interested as you claim, you will be asking > > more questions. If you expect courtesy and answers, then you > > had better learn how not to annoy or piss off the bit gods whose > > brains you wish to pick. > A shear stupidity!!!! > Its not necessary to ask the question to this group only.I am taking > best advantage of usenet and posted many questions to the related > groups and getting positive feedback. > > > >>What the fuck more do you > > >>want? > Now you should better mind about your foul language. > > > >> An apology to that guy might get you back out of the swamp > > >> you walked in. > > >OK.From my side I am hereby raising a "White flag". > > > > It doesn't no good to raise a white flag to me nor to the > > guy who was so "rude" to you. Changing the behaviour > > that is annoying people is what we expect in this newsgroup. > > That's one of reasons this newsgroup has a high S/N ratio. > > .................................................. > ................................................... > > > /BAH > > > > > > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. Yogesh ---- Your remarks are on-target, appropriate & well spoken. Bravo !! ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: Charlton Wilbur Message-ID: <87ad0ymgs2.fsf@mithril.chromatico.net> Lines: 32 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:14:21 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.152.218 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrddc02.gnilink.net 1083024861 151.203.152.218 (Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:14:21 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 20:14:21 EDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc02.gnilink.net.POSTED!3afc5d6c!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172590 >>>>> "y" == yogesh writes: y> There is nothing wrong in my behaviour.I just reatcte to his y> commnets.AnD iF yOu hAvE A pRobLeM In rEaDiNg mY ASCII tHeN I y> cAn'T hElP. If the intelligent people who know the answers to the questions you have to ask all decide to plonk you or ignore you, then *you* are the one who will suffer in the end. y> Its not me but you who should change attitude and y> behaviour since this is a open group and various people will y> make honest attempts by posting their question in whichever way y> they can phrase it in.So rather than wasting your time in y> teaching each and every one how to post the message please y> concentrate only on the technical part of it. Style matters. What your style says to me is, "I'm an ignorant fuckwit who believes his message to be of such great importance that hundreds of people will waste their time trying to figure out what I'm trying to say." If you can't be bothered to write coherently, I really can't be bothered to read your posts or respond to them. And I expect I'm not the only one. BAH was doing you a favor in pointing this out. If you're too stupid to realize that, oh well, your loss. Charlton -- cwilbur at chromatico dot net cwilbur at mac dot com ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 27 Apr 2004 03:33:50 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1083036830 21175 134.117.136.48 (27 Apr 2004 03:33:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Apr 2004 03:33:50 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!news.netplace.de!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172603 Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. (rhn@mauve.rahul.net) writes: > Where did the designation or term "dumb terminal" come from? ... That's a damn good question. It certainly didn't come from anyone who successfully built one, and by success I mean just getting the thing to work. It's so easy to have a barbeque today. Now, think back to rubbing sticks together. None of that three second liquid oxygen charcoal briquet stuff, eh? B-) ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 27 Apr 2004 03:09:57 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 39 Message-ID: References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <87ad0ymgs2.fsf@mithril.chromatico.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083060597 5123 127.0.0.1 (27 Apr 2004 10:09:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:09:57 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172611 Charlton Wilbur wrote in message news:<87ad0ymgs2.fsf@mithril.chromatico.net>... > >>>>> "y" == yogesh writes: > > y> There is nothing wrong in my behaviour.I just reatcte to his > y> commnets.AnD iF yOu hAvE A pRobLeM In rEaDiNg mY ASCII tHeN I > y> cAn'T hElP. > > If the intelligent people who know the answers to the questions you > have to ask all decide to plonk you or ignore you, then *you* are the > one who will suffer in the end. What a stupid statement?? Had the "intelligent people" decided to ignore me,this post wouldn't have been so long.And it's still going and going and going. I think you are too egostic a person whose ego can simply be hurt by a simple and harmelss gramatical mistake. > y> Its not me but you who should change attitude and > y> behaviour since this is a open group and various people will > y> make honest attempts by posting their question in whichever way > y> they can phrase it in.So rather than wasting your time in > y> teaching each and every one how to post the message please > y> concentrate only on the technical part of it. > > Style matters. What your style says to me is, "I'm an ignorant > fuckwit who believes his message to be of such great importance that > hundreds of people will waste their time trying to figure out what I'm > trying to say." If you can't be bothered to write coherently, I > really can't be bothered to read your posts or respond to them. And > I expect I'm not the only one. Any way I have already got what I was looking for.I got not only one but a multipoint view of the problem I posted previously.There is no point in reacting to each of your "rotten attitude" message. (One advice to you : A intelligent person never uses this type of slang language.Better control yourselves.) > BAH was doing you a favor in pointing this out. If you're too stupid > to realize that, oh well, your loss. > > Charlton ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 04 10:22:44 GMT Lines: 40 Message-ID: <408e51d3$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=8]@_QD, "Jack Peacock" wrote: > wrote in message >news:408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> > .. A family of hard copy terminal's >> >useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing >> >each character as it passed. >> >> Yup. And they were crap. Nobody liked using them. >> >DECWriter Is weren't so great, but the DECWriter II was a coveted >replacement for ASR33s. Sure. I can understand that. I'd rather have the gray flavored whose number I get mixed up with an U/L terminal--35 or 36. > .. The section I worked in at a research lab was the >first to get a brand new DW II. Within days after we had it hooked up >people from all over the lab showed up to see it in action. It was fast >(30cps), the keyboard was a joy compared to an ASR33, >and best of all it was >QUIET! Ours were in the machine room. We didn't notice that aspect of the terminal. OTOH, I can remember people threatening RDH's GT40 with terminal acts if he didn't remove the hum. > >A few years later I had an incredible stroke of luck when a installing a new >PDP-11/34 system for a customer. It came bundled with a DW II as the >console, but the owner told me he wanted to use his existing CRT instead, >and to "get rid" of the DECwriter. It wound up in my house and provided >many years of service before I traded it for a sat dish. :) You traded a beloved TTY for a Saturday night dinner ;-)). /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <4087cf10$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 04 10:31:02 GMT Lines: 38 Message-ID: <408e53c5$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=m1HmhZIOJ:\;4eORGAV@, Patrick Scheible wrote: >jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: > >> In article , >> "Michael N. LeVine" wrote: >> >In article , >> > "Bill Leary" wrote: >> > >> > .. A family of hard copy terminal's >> >useing a dot matrix print head that ran across the paper printing >> >each character as it passed. >> >> Yup. And they were crap. Nobody liked using them. > >All depends on what you were comparing them to. Sure. The app was important. > .. Better than a teletype... Not my guys. They preferred a 35(36 I can't remember the damned number). Later they learned to use a video in the form of a VT06; I'm talking about when the guys had the system stand-alone and had to use the console to debug. The only debugger who voluntarily used the Dec Writer was (shit..there went his name..last name starts with a P and I want to say Prushack but I know that's not right). Anyway the reason he liked using it was because he was blind as a bat and could make the font huge so he could debug the front end. If he had to look at a normal size, he'ld have to take his glasses off and put his eyeball right next to the paper to see what got typed. I'm so damned embarrassed I can't make my brain produce his name. /BAH ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408d0944$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 04 10:35:36 GMT Lines: 45 Message-ID: <408e54d7$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=oifUKoU@I`?5NMJKmZWPZ?0R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:APX?:2QKD35I3O8BVgV^P9lB1DdLHS@e0glUdm=P44R0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172627 In article , Mikko Nahkola wrote: >In article <408d0944$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >> TCS wrote: > >>>All you had to do is understand what the settings did. > >>>IE: if you saw double echo, one was your keystroke being echoed by the >>>terminal and the other echoed by the computer. Turn off local echo and >>>the problem was fixed. > >> Oh, honey. [wailing emoticon here] I never got that far. You >> had to have a "working" terminal before setting host and logging in. > >.... but ... you _can_ usually get things done even when the terminal is >in that state. No! I couldn't. Nobody could. Then CDO came up with a magic incantation and invoked on everybody's terminal. It didn't take him mere minutes. At least a day of crapping around. > ..That is, if you understand what it's doing and ... CDO was good. JMF was good. VT100s and I took an instant disliking for each other. I kept it a secret that, if anybody had fucked with my tty settings, I wouldn't get any work done. > >There was a case where the system had been accidentally misconfigured to >turn double echo back on regularly, on the console. Had to log in to fix >it ... > >A similar symptom can be had by having two overlapping logins on the >same console. No kidding, I've seen that more than once too, on a >certain UNIX variant. That one had the focus switch between processes >after each char too, so you typed "llsscr>" and got each to run one >instance of ls ... once you had managed to log in on both. That's what you get with no unique tty device associated with a job. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <8c160850.0404250456.1d46bed6@posting.google.com> <408bb867$0$28920$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408d005e$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 04 10:42:02 GMT Lines: 58 Message-ID: <408e5659$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=n6gf:][ZJ, cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 04 10:23:07 GMT, jmfbahciv ("jmfbahciv") writes: > > jmfbahciv> In article , > jmfbahciv> cstacy@news.dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 04 11:04:00 GMT, jmfbahciv ("jmfbahciv") writes: > >> > jmfbahciv> talking about file generation numbers? I'd like to shoot > jmfbahciv> the VMS guy who called them versions. > >> > >> Why? > > jmfbahciv> Because DEC already had a hard and fast definition of "version" > jmfbahciv> and it had to do with software patching revisions, not editing > jmfbahciv> revisions, where editing means what it used to mean: the act > jmfbahciv> of getting a change into a file containing a bunch of ASCII > jmfbahciv> characters. This implies that it may take five edits to get > jmfbahciv> one change into that file, correctly [emoticon recalling how > jmfbahciv> many edits it took to get the bells to ring when TOPS-10 > jmfbahciv> crashed]. > > jmfbahciv> I didn't even like the TOPS-20 noun, generations, although > jmfbahciv> it was a better choice than version. > >Why not called an editing revision something like "editing revision", >and call program versions "program versions", and source management >branches "branches". The system from which TOPS-20 took the feature >also had all those things; but when you wrote a new numbered version >of a file out, it was simply called a "file version" and there was >never any confusion. There was confusion. It always took a while to figure out which version somebody was talking about. Most of our work dealt with releases denoted by version numbers. When somebody talked about a foo.BAK file, we never knew WTF they were talking about. Using that word wasted a hell of a lot of time, caused tons of misunderstandings (think about PHBs who produces SPDs that have version numbers and then think about this same PHB sitting down in a meeting and hearing somebody talking about a file revision number). The danger of the latter is the PHB will "remember" to put it in the SPD. > >Suggesting that the word "version" be reduced to always refer to >only one thing seems arbitrary to me, and confusing a file with >a document revision number or a program version just seems like >imprecise thinking. It wasn't the thinking that was confused. It was applying two meanings to a word so that nobody could distinguish the meaning even when used in context. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### X-Abuse-Report: abuse@teranews.com Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:42:27 GMT Lines: 18 From: Michael Ross Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!hydra.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.teranews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172612 On 26 Apr 2004 11:10:17 -0700, ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: (to BAH of all people!) >Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since >this is a open group Whooooooooooosh... I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I have given on many previous occasions: Healy's First Law of Holes. Mike http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <87ad0ymgs2.fsf@mithril.chromatico.net> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 04 10:48:24 GMT Lines: 22 Message-ID: <408e57d7$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC===I_Z5VWoO?nj67=4fdll00R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:APX?:2QKD35I3O8BVgV^P9lB1DdLHS@e0glUdm=P44R0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172629 In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >Any way I have already got what I was looking for. But you didn't get what you were looking for. We, and only we, know how info you didn't read because we didn't write it. > ..I got not only one >but a multipoint view of the problem I posted previously.There is no >point in reacting to each of your "rotten attitude" message. >(One advice to you : A intelligent person never uses this type of >slang language.Better control yourselves.) Then you've never met somebody who was genuinely intelligent. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 04 10:51:41 GMT Lines: 24 Message-ID: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=0=d9YXdGXg0i@nX;[4^GS=0R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:APX?:2QKD35I3O8BVgV^P9lB1DdLHS@e0glUdm=P44R0 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news2.euro.net!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172630 In article , rhn@mauve.rahul.net (Ronald H. Nicholson Jr.) wrote: >Where did the designation or term "dumb terminal" come from? Well, they couldn't print what we really called them!! /BAH > >It seems doubtful that anyone would use such a term unless they were >trying to invent a marketing plan for some new-fangled "smart" terminal. >Or was it to differentiate early mechanical teletype consoles from "real" >computer front panels with impressive displays of das blinkenlights? > > >IMHO. YMMV. I don't remember them getting called dumb when we were using them. I think they got dumb when the designers started putting some processing "smarts" in the TTY boxes. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408d0944$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 30 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 11:01:59 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.102.87 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news2.nokia.com 1083063719 172.22.102.87 (Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:01:59 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:01:59 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!news-stoc.telia.net!news-stoa.telia.net!telia.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!news2.nokia.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172613 In article <408d0944$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > TCS wrote: >>All you had to do is understand what the settings did. >>IE: if you saw double echo, one was your keystroke being echoed by the >>terminal and the other echoed by the computer. Turn off local echo and >>the problem was fixed. > Oh, honey. [wailing emoticon here] I never got that far. You > had to have a "working" terminal before setting host and logging in. ... but ... you _can_ usually get things done even when the terminal is in that state. That is, if you understand what it's doing and ... There was a case where the system had been accidentally misconfigured to turn double echo back on regularly, on the console. Had to log in to fix it ... A similar symptom can be had by having two overlapping logins on the same console. No kidding, I've seen that more than once too, on a certain UNIX variant. That one had the focus switch between processes after each char too, so you typed "llsscr>" and got each to run one instance of ls ... once you had managed to log in on both. -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:29:37 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:32:55 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-QNnfMRvc8GXAbRehhtHCIEaRYWFh58EWRuYYhHe7A5xIzD5IgMnrm2LmEJdO9UTnSKp+wp1YCp3FRU/!E2yih/g/aEWFYq/t8nWOZZRivPl+zJq0Q0riYKEJDrSQ8UA4G2PffyikI0w= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172635 > I don't remember them getting called dumb when we were using > them. I think they got dumb when the designers started > putting some processing "smarts" in the TTY boxes. My earliest recollection of a terminal being called "dumb" was when we started getting addressable cursors. The terminals which could not address the cursor started being called "dumb." I do not, however, recall that we called the addressable ones "intelligent." As time went on and terminals became more "feature rich" (glup) the term "intelligent" emerged and the bar on what was "dumb" started to rise. Again, using my personal experience, "dumb" got stabilized somewhere above where the terminal could address a cursor and, *perhaps*, do an "erase to end of line" but below where it could do a scroll backwards, insert line and so forth. "truly dumb" was below the addressable cursor level. - Bill ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408d0944$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408e54d7$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 66 Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 13:40:04 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.102.87 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news1.nokia.com 1083073204 172.22.102.87 (Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:40:04 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:40:04 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.tiscali.ch!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-stoc.telia.net!news-stoa.telia.net!telia.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172636 In article <408e54d7$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > Mikko Nahkola wrote: >>In article <408d0944$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com >>> TCS wrote: >>>>All you had to do is understand what the settings did. >>>>IE: if you saw double echo, one was your keystroke being echoed by the >>>>terminal and the other echoed by the computer. Turn off local echo and >>>>the problem was fixed. >>> Oh, honey. [wailing emoticon here] I never got that far. You >>> had to have a "working" terminal before setting host and logging in. >>.... but ... you _can_ usually get things done even when the terminal is >>in that state. > No! I couldn't. Nobody could. Then CDO came up with a magic > incantation and invoked on everybody's terminal. It didn't > take him mere minutes. At least a day of crapping around. It could well be that having learned enough of troubleshooting, I've also learned how to work with only partially functional systems. (Well, if I need to fix the thing so that the better interfaces work again, I need something to work with, don't I?) Sure enough, you need to have things like transfer rate, parity, flow control and such right before you can do anything, but I just checked that local echo is something that I can still live with if I need to. Along with a bunch of others in that class. And I used to know other people who could, too ... what with tty access seeming to be an endagered piece of culture anyway ... >> ..That is, if you understand what it's doing and ... > CDO was good. JMF was good. VT100s and I took an instant > disliking for each other. I kept it a secret that, if anybody > had fucked with my tty settings, I wouldn't get any work done. I do grant that I haven't actually ever touched a live VT100. The earliest of that series that I have used in real life was a VT220, and that seems to be a rather different beast. Now, certain other terminals trying to emulate all the quirks of a real VT100, then ... >>A similar symptom can be had by having two overlapping logins on the >>same console. No kidding, I've seen that more than once too, on a >>certain UNIX variant. That one had the focus switch between processes >>after each char too, so you typed "llsscr>" and got each to run one >>instance of ls ... once you had managed to log in on both. > That's what you get with no unique tty device associated with a job. Oh, both of those jobs _did_ have an unique tty device associated with them, but the tty device didn't have an unique job ... which might have been a non-trivial requirement anyway given that one of the OS features was to be able to switch between jobs under the login shell, putting one job on the background and the other on foreground, and then back ... Still, that was a "shouldn't be possible" kind of bug IIRC. -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 15:04:58 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404241558.3c143f33@posting.google.com> <2r-dneqOfo-7gBbdRVn-sw@comcast.com> <408bb4a3$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408d0944$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408e54d7$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083074844 13907033 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172637 Mikko Nahkola wrote: > I do grant that I haven't actually ever touched a live VT100. The > earliest of that series that I have used in real life was a VT220, and > that seems to be a rather different beast. > I spent a couple of years using them in the labs. I didn't like several of the physical attributes of the terminals - in particular I felt that the springing on the keyboards was ridiculously harsh (and I *like* tactile keyboards) and became fatiguing and actually hurt after a short while, and there was a common fault on the video output that saw, on many of our VT100s, the scan lines at the top of the tube spaced too far apart vertically (resulting in tall, dim characters) and those at the bottom cramped up (resulting in squat, over-bright ones). At the time our main terminal room was using Visual 200s - superb VT52 clones (with some enhancements) that had some of the best keyboards I've ever used. They were gorgeous. There was nothing wrong with the physical configuration of a VT100, its keyboard layout or command set - I have an immense soft-spot for the Plessey PT100, which had an excellent, rock-solid amber phosphor display and a comfortable keyboard. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:45:18 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:43:41 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:hGSopU6labb58/5RNDP5PyTDJK8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 65 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.202.78 X-Trace: sv3-5fFIr0pzBw7TcpWfuZ3i71/3wuBi8QPcC8zknVXCrPMjG1NXn05CcxN2WIsw9LhFveXy8+hE/HJlwYS!1HcBTgGRTKbJqejzAT0xa6xGyLEp/PX0OHdXH+JXpbPVbjn8bj7mUtCr X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172642 "Bill Leary" writes: > My earliest recollection of a terminal being called "dumb" was when we > started getting addressable cursors. The terminals which could not address > the cursor started being called "dumb." I do not, however, recall that we > called the addressable ones "intelligent." As time went on and terminals > became more "feature rich" (glup) the term "intelligent" emerged and the bar > on what was "dumb" started to rise. Again, using my personal experience, > "dumb" got stabilized somewhere above where the terminal could address a > cursor and, *perhaps*, do an "erase to end of line" but below where it could > do a scroll backwards, insert line and so forth. "truly dumb" was below the > addressable cursor level. at least the local channel attach 3270s were supposedly so fast that the issue of dump/smart didn't really enter into it (except for some niggling human factors issues). the corporate home terminal program started taking off with 300 baud and 3101 ascii terminals (although i had home terminal starting in spring of 1970 with 2741 and later "upgrade" to ti silent 700). the 3101 period was also somewhat the era of the transition from 300 to 1200 baud. the support on the host side for 3270 emulation with 3101 block mode expanded to include a host-side representation of what was on the screen of the 3101 (and in the local 3101 memory) and logic that if the new screen contained significant portions from the old screen, it would push the old characters to the new position(s) and then only have to paint in the new characters (potentially significantly reducing the number of characters that needed to be transmitted). this was significantly expanded upgrading 3101s to PCs ... and some transition from 1200 baud to 2400 baud. The PC side got something like a 64k byte cache of previously transmitted characters ... and the host could specify portions of screen to be painted by indexing previously transmitted information in the PC's cache; and of course the actual transmission in both directions was subject to heavy compression. an operation scrolling (up) to the previous page became really fast. the next big step was moving from 2400 baud modems to telebit modems running at 14k ... and then with even faster baud rates as well as compression technology moving into the modems. some topic drift ... there were big battles with the early 3270 full-screen editors and what did UP and DOWN mean. they all tended to use the metaphor that the screen represented a window on a continuous "scroll" of text. The issue was somewhat whether 1) the up/down used a program centric orientation where the scroll of text was moved up or down, i.e. scrolling (the text) UP resulted in moving towards the end of the scroll/file 2) the up/down used a person centric orientation where the window (&/or person's eye) was moved up/down, i.e. scrolling (the window) UP resulted in moving towards the start of the scroll/file. I've had a TV settop box that exhibited some problem in this area. When viewing a program, hitting "up" moves to a larger number channel and hitting "down" moves to a smaller number channel .... however if viewing the menu of channels (& programs), hitting "up" moves to smaller number channel on the menu (top of screen) and hitting "down" moves towards larger number channel (towards bottom of the screen) ... the order of the buttons are exactly reversed ... depending on whether a program is being viewed or the menu of channels is being viewed. -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 08:17:30 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: genew@mail.ocis.net References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 114 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!news.osn.de!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsrout1.ntli.net!news-in.ntli.net!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172644 ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >>>I started correcting your manners when your nose started to run >>> snot. >Thanks but this service of yours of "teaching to correct the manners" >is not required.I am only intersted in technical discussion.And I am It is required. You are not the only one here. Your interests are not the only ones. This is a community. It has been been here for some time. If you want to join, you have to deal with the current inhabitants. >making my best attempt to discuss in whichever neat and clean language >I can.And if you are desperately interested in teaching mannerism , go > and start a new group. Do you know whom you stated that to? Barb is one of the more respected members of this group. >> >> >The intention of the question was very clear "I would like to hear >> >> >some real life experience dumb terminals and teletypes" from you. >> >> >> >> And telling one of those experts, whose experience you claimed >> >> you wanted to hear about, that he wasn't invited is not the >> >> way to get him to tell you a story. >> >When someone is saying "don't bother me",what type of reply do you >> >expect from me. >> >> I expect you to not bother him or correct the behaviour that >> is bothering him. Correcting the behaviour is the correct >> thing to do because I'm also having problems reading your >> ASCII. >There is nothing wrong in my behaviour.I just reatcte to his Sure there is. >commnets.AnD iF yOu hAvE A pRobLeM In rEaDiNg mY ASCII tHeN I cAn'T Are you saying that you have no control over your behaviour? >hElP.Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since Then learn. >this is a open group and various people will make honest attempts by >posting their question in whichever way they can phrase it in.So Did you deliberately type the above? If so, you do have some control over your behaviour. Use it. >rather than wasting your time in teaching each and every one how to >post the message please concentrate only on the technical part of it. >> > ..I would have appreciated had he first shared his >> >experience and then would have said "that". >> >> Bullshit. He has a LIFETIME of experience. Why should he >> waste time on you who are rude and can't write worth shit? >> And Michael, the other one you drooled at, didn't say anything >> nasty, condescending or stupid. >Now again you are reacting only to the half part of the story.I was >never rude and when someone is "making an intentional point of >neglecting you",the reaction of mine was but obvious. But of course you were. >> >>Now, your question produced >> >> a hundred posts or more and they talked about TTYs. Everything >> >> we say is based on our experience. >> > >> >I am really enjoying reading the experiences of others and really >> >thankfull to all of those who contributed positively. >> >And this is not the issue as far as this "subthread" is >> >concerend.Don't make my reply general. >> >> This subthread is an attempt to train you in basic netiquette. >LOL > >> If you are indeed as interested as you claim, you will be asking >> more questions. If you expect courtesy and answers, then you >> had better learn how not to annoy or piss off the bit gods whose >> brains you wish to pick. >A shear stupidity!!!! >Its not necessary to ask the question to this group only.I am taking >best advantage of usenet and posted many questions to the related >groups and getting positive feedback. Really? Then why are you going about it exactly the wrong way? >> >>What the fuck more do you >> >>want? >Now you should better mind about your foul language. > >> >> An apology to that guy might get you back out of the swamp >> >> you walked in. >> >OK.From my side I am hereby raising a "White flag". >> >> It doesn't no good to raise a white flag to me nor to the >> guy who was so "rude" to you. Changing the behaviour >> that is annoying people is what we expect in this newsgroup. >> That's one of reasons this newsgroup has a high S/N ratio. Barb's point is it. We do not care about your whining that you do not like the behaviour we are insisting on. We like it. If you do not like it, go elsewhere, or start your own group. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### From: "Paul Williams" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:37:02 +0100 Organization: VT100.net Message-ID: User-Agent: Pan/0.13.3 (That cat's something I can't explain) References: <270420040005540935%nospam@yrl.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 14 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172651 On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:05:54 +0100, Elliott Roper wrote: > In article , Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. > wrote: > >> Where did the designation or term "dumb terminal" come from? > > I thought it was how you pronounced ADM3 Quite right. Why on earth did Lear Siegler trademark the term? -- Paul ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 17:49:43 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 14 Message-ID: <7v2m6c.8pm.ln@fenelon.com> References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <87ad0ymgs2.fsf@mithril.chromatico.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083084741 14024815 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172656 yogesh wrote: > Any way I have already got what I was looking for.I got not only one > but a multipoint view of the problem I posted previously.There is no > point in reacting to each of your "rotten attitude" message. > (One advice to you : A intelligent person never uses this type of > slang language.Better control yourselves.) Got it. You're not real. You're Arthur Murray's addled AI, spouting gibberish. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 27 Apr 2004 17:14:52 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1083086092 18001 134.117.136.48 (27 Apr 2004 17:14:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Apr 2004 17:14:52 GMT X-Given-Sender: et472@smeagol.ncf.ca (Michael Black) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.monmouth.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!et472 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172662 Michael Ross (mike@corestore.org) writes: > On 26 Apr 2004 11:10:17 -0700, ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) > wrote: > > (to BAH of all people!) > >>Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since >>this is a open group > > Whooooooooooosh... > > I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I have given on many > previous occasions: Healy's First Law of Holes. > Do you think this guy is "Airy Bean" who stumbled in here some months back, but now under a different name? These comments seem a replay of that episode. Michael ###### From: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 27 Apr 2004 17:19:58 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: <270420040005540935%nospam@yrl.co.uk> Reply-To: et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1083086398 18208 134.117.136.48 (27 Apr 2004 17:19:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Apr 2004 17:19:58 GMT X-Given-Sender: et472@smeagol.ncf.ca (Michael Black) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!et472 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172665 "Paul Williams" (news@celigne.co.uk) writes: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:05:54 +0100, Elliott Roper wrote: > >> In article , Ronald H. Nicholson Jr. >> wrote: >> >>> Where did the designation or term "dumb terminal" come from? >> >> I thought it was how you pronounced ADM3 > > Quite right. Why on earth did Lear Siegler trademark the term? > So I'm not imagining that I saw an ad that used "dumb terminal" in prominent letters circa 1975 or so. Since that is when I basically started seeing computer equipment, I honestly could not say if that was the vector for my learning of the term, or if it was coming from elsewhere. Michael ###### From: David Powell Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 19:04:49 +0100 Lines: 16 Message-ID: References: <9AKiApHpvWvG092yn@visi.com> <9bgh805aipfbpooufsf4o6dbq4uvis2ac1@4ax.com> <1082745765.40566@teapot.planet.gong> <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> <1082765624.22558@teapot.planet.gong> Reply-To: ddotpowell@icuknet.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: 116.24.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.net (194.153.24.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083089068 14009833 I 194.153.24.116 ([161127]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!116.24.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.NET!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172676 In article , "David Wade" in alt.folklore.computers wrote: > >Does any one have a copy of the cartoon about designing the swing. The one >that shows each stage of the project, e.g. "As the analyst saw it", "As the >programmers coded it" ending finally with "What the user really wanted" > > http://www.uoregon.edu/~ftepfer/SchlFacilities/TireSwingTable.html Regards, David P. ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 27 Apr 04 10:10:27 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 16 Message-ID: <632.613T1380T6104673@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <960.609T2957T7296538@kltpzyxm.invalid> <1082765624.22558@teapot.planet.gong> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-563.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172669 In article g8mqw@yahoo.com (David Wade) writes: >Does any one have a copy of the cartoon about designing the swing. >The one that shows each stage of the project, e.g. "As the analyst >saw it", "As the programmers coded it" ending finally with "What the >user really wanted" I've e-mailed you an HTML version. Does anyone else want it? -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 20:27:42 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 11 Message-ID: References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083094327 14124072 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172684 Michael Black wrote: > Do you think this guy is "Airy Bean" who stumbled in here some months > back, but now under a different name? These comments seem a replay > of that episode. > There's a whiff of Jorn Barger, too. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### From: mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 27 Apr 2004 19:04:40 GMT Organization: Micro Focus International Ltd Lines: 47 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mwojcik@newsguy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: p-946.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: xrn 9.00 Originator: mww@sen Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!news.glorb.com!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mww Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172703 In article , "David Wade" writes: > > "Michael Wojcik" wrote in message > news:c68ola0bke@news3.newsguy.com... > > > > LU2 and TN3270[E] are very different. TN3270 is a form of Telnet, > > running over TCP/IP. LU2 is an SNA protocol. Aside from carrying > > user data in EBCDIC and having some functional similarities (by > > necessity) they have little in common. > > I would beg to differ. The meaning of the EBCDIC data is almost identical. > ... > So at the "application" layer the data streams are the same. True. Clearly "very different" is subjective. I work almost entirely at the lower layers, and pay little attention to the application data except to check that it's being passed correctly. So from my point of view, it's the lower-layer characteristics which matter most; but others may have a different impression. > There is as > you say TN3270 dialects, and LU2 SNA. However there are also locally > attached 3270's which have no LU2 in sight, and bi-sync attached 3270's, for > which again there is no LU2, but which are (or well used to be) supported by > or incorperated into SNA. Yep. I've used CUT and DFT and SDLC 3270s. Don't know that I've used a bisync one, but it's possible. It's been too long for me to remember all the varieties, and I no longer have a copy of the 3270 data stream book. (Lynn's post in this thread brought back a lot of memories, though.) > I think the SNA option and token ring really came after the "3270 on a card" > option. I agree. I had those listed out of chronological order in my previous post, and while I described "3270 on a card" as mainly a 1980s phenomenon (as I remember it), I didn't give any date for SNA-and- Token-Ring in PCs - I don't recall seeing that before the '90s. -- Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com As always, great patience and a clean work area are required for fulfillment of this diversion, and it should not be attempted if either are compromised. -- Chris Ware ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: Bernd Felsche User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:34:10 +0800 Message-ID: <2pa3m1xh1m.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> Lines: 27 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.144.24 X-Trace: 1083113050 freenews.iinet.net.au 16605 203.59.144.24 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!newsfeeds.ihug.co.nz!ihug.co.nz!ken-transit.news.telstra.net!lon-in.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!freenews.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172702 et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) writes: >Michael Ross (mike@corestore.org) writes: >> On 26 Apr 2004 11:10:17 -0700, ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) >> wrote: >> >> (to BAH of all people!) >> >>>Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since >>>this is a open group >> Whooooooooooosh... >> I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I have given on many >> previous occasions: Healy's First Law of Holes. >Do you think this guy is "Airy Bean" who stumbled in here some months >back, but now under a different name? These comments seem a replay >of that episode. I'm moderately amused by the coincidence of Subject and actual discussion; dumb terminal vs terminally dumb. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! ###### From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 22:31:55 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: genew@mail.ocis.net References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408e51d3$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 27 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172716 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >In article , > "Jack Peacock" wrote: [snip] >>A few years later I had an incredible stroke of luck when a installing a >new >>PDP-11/34 system for a customer. It came bundled with a DW II as the >>console, but the owner told me he wanted to use his existing CRT instead, >>and to "get rid" of the DECwriter. It wound up in my house and provided >>many years of service before I traded it for a sat dish. :) > >You traded a beloved TTY for a Saturday night dinner ;-)). With us guys, they are not attached. Oh, wait, that was "TTY" not "titty". Sorry, sorry. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408e51d3$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 04 10:17:08 GMT Lines: 27 Message-ID: <408fa20c$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=P[3miRWO[5KGna5N>Om8iJ0R]m=BkYWIG:6bU3OT9S9Jlb2`\6]M^:NI3O8BVgV^PI8nj\bPY^caH_0J@U_bNMJH X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172736 In article , Gene Wirchenko wrote: >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > >>In article , >> "Jack Peacock" wrote: > >[snip] > >>>A few years later I had an incredible stroke of luck when a installing a >>new >>>PDP-11/34 system for a customer. It came bundled with a DW II as the >>>console, but the owner told me he wanted to use his existing CRT instead, >>>and to "get rid" of the DECwriter. It wound up in my house and provided >>>many years of service before I traded it for a sat dish. :) >> >>You traded a beloved TTY for a Saturday night dinner ;-)). > > With us guys, they are not attached. Oh, wait, that was "TTY" >not "titty". Sorry, sorry. And that involves _two_ TTYs, not one. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 04 10:18:24 GMT Lines: 25 Message-ID: <408fa258$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=48VZBFZ=ODHJoDC5B;TFKL0R]m=BkYWIG:6bU3OT9S9Jlb2`\6]M^:NI3O8BVgV^PI8nj\bPY^caH_0J@U_bNMJH X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!news.osn.de!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!diablo.voicenet.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172737 In article , et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote: >Michael Ross (mike@corestore.org) writes: >> On 26 Apr 2004 11:10:17 -0700, ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) >> wrote: >> >> (to BAH of all people!) >> >>>Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since >>>this is a open group >> >> Whooooooooooosh... >> >> I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I have given on many >> previous occasions: Healy's First Law of Holes. >> >Do you think this guy is "Airy Bean" who stumbled in here some months >back, but now under a different name? These comments seem a replay >of that episode. I was thinking of him and another one whose moniker I can't recall. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 04 10:25:05 GMT Lines: 35 Message-ID: <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=mRJ5NVokg_R^Rd:c=kZ2XY0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9Zlb2`\6]M^:^I3O8BVgV^PY8nj\bPY^caX_0J@U_bNMJX X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!opentransit.net!newsfeed.yul.equant.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172738 In article , "Bill Leary" wrote: >> I don't remember them getting called dumb when we were using >> them. I think they got dumb when the designers started >> putting some processing "smarts" in the TTY boxes. > >My earliest recollection of a terminal being called "dumb" was when we >started getting addressable cursors. The terminals which could not address >the cursor started being called "dumb." IIRC, not even then. The VT05 was kind of a cursor addresser (every time somebody tried to write code to use the display, lots of cursing was done) and I still don't recall dumb being used then. I could almost say the same thing about VT50s but I won't because that's around the time dumb got into the language. > .. I do not, however, recall that we >called the addressable ones "intelligent." As time went on and terminals >became more "feature rich" (glup) the term "intelligent" emerged and the bar >on what was "dumb" started to rise. Again, using my personal experience, >"dumb" got stabilized somewhere above where the terminal could address a >cursor and, *perhaps*, do an "erase to end of line" but below where it could >do a scroll backwards, insert line and so forth. "truly dumb" was below the >addressable cursor level. Could "dumb" be when the program had to do the cursor movements by hand? /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 04 10:31:10 GMT Lines: 68 Message-ID: <408fa555$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=SCnFoS312Aio?iRBY^D>, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: >"Bill Leary" writes: >> My earliest recollection of a terminal being called "dumb" was when we >> started getting addressable cursors. The terminals which could not address >> the cursor started being called "dumb." I do not, however, recall that we >> called the addressable ones "intelligent." As time went on and terminals >> became more "feature rich" (glup) the term "intelligent" emerged and the bar >> on what was "dumb" started to rise. Again, using my personal experience, >> "dumb" got stabilized somewhere above where the terminal could address a >> cursor and, *perhaps*, do an "erase to end of line" but below where it could >> do a scroll backwards, insert line and so forth. "truly dumb" was below the >> addressable cursor level. > >at least the local channel attach 3270s were supposedly so fast that >the issue of dump/smart didn't really enter into it (except for some >niggling human factors issues). the corporate home terminal program >started taking off with 300 baud and 3101 ascii terminals (although i >had home terminal starting in spring of 1970 with 2741 and later >"upgrade" to ti silent 700). the 3101 period was also somewhat the era >of the transition from 300 to 1200 baud. We're trying to decide this based on tech details. I don't think smart/dumb got started with the engineers. Can you recall when you started hearing the terms and how they were used? I got a feeling that this was a marketing-generated doodad. >some topic drift ... there were big battles with the early 3270 >full-screen editors and what did UP and DOWN mean. they all tended to >use the metaphor that the screen represented a window on a continuous >"scroll" of text. The issue was somewhat whether > >1) the up/down used a program centric orientation where the scroll of >text was moved up or down, i.e. scrolling (the text) UP resulted in >moving towards the end of the scroll/file > >2) the up/down used a person centric orientation where the window >(&/or person's eye) was moved up/down, i.e. scrolling (the window) UP >resulted in moving towards the start of the scroll/file. I think everybody had that discussion. We solved it by opening a listing as if one was going to edit it. After all, a source listing is a paper representation of what you're going to see on the screen. > >I've had a TV settop box that exhibited some problem in this >area. Yahoo! That's why I couldn't deal with idiot thing. Another mystery of my life solved. Thank you, thankyou, thankyou. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: "Peter Ibbotson" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:31:40 +0100 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mailgate.lakeview.co.uk X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1083151901 13487 62.49.243.90 (28 Apr 2004 11:31:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:31:41 +0000 (UTC) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Priority: 3 X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172726 "Pete Fenelon" wrote in message news:e7cm6c.u0t.ln@fenelon.com... > Michael Black wrote: > > Do you think this guy is "Airy Bean" who stumbled in here some months > > back, but now under a different name? These comments seem a replay > > of that episode. > > > > There's a whiff of Jorn Barger, too. > Both of whom made into my blocked senders list. -- Work peteri@lakeview.co.uk.plugh.org | remove magic word .org to reply Home peter@ibbotson.co.uk.plugh.org | I own the domain but theres no MX ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 09:38:44 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:37:03 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Ypevsb1sS3qa+elreo0JU+JAUoE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 80 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.202.78 X-Trace: sv3-ayYIjk6X1lm03FPI+hA4wba5g8jn7lCSZmcPfYWdFOaGQ5FD58rMaRVb6ZVXVW3PuM7ajpj5g1hnGcl!Ds9t2MarlCEtD4xeZcx7MZaCvkaAWwpclCdpUdIJIqWAhjefjel9FrUj X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172750 mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) writes: > I agree. I had those listed out of chronological order in my previous > post, and while I described "3270 on a card" as mainly a 1980s > phenomenon (as I remember it), I didn't give any date for SNA-and- > Token-Ring in PCs - I don't recall seeing that before the '90s. my wife is one of the co-inventors on patent for token/loop lan architecture (Loop Configured Data Transmission Systems; '78 in the US and '79 in europe) and (at least) both the Series 1 chat ring and token ring came after that ('80s). quicky use of search engine comes up with http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~gkt/Teaching/SEM335/token/history.html which has Zurich research publishing specification for token-ring in '81 and IEEE802.5 token ring published in '83 course it also mentions OSI model beginning in '77. recent post about ISO and ANSI in the late '80s not allowing standards that violate OSI; aka 1) internet violates OSI because the internetworking layer doesn't exist in OSI (sitting mythical place between the bottom of layer 4/transport and the top of layer 3/networking) 2) LANs violate OSI because the LAN MAC interface is actually someplace in the middle of layer 3/networking (aka LAN MAC is higher than top of layer 2, because it performs some function that are part of networking/layer 3) 3) the HSP (high speed protocol) work item was rejected by ANSI X3S3.3 (US group responsible for OSI layer 3 & layer 4 standards work) because it violated the no standards violation of OSI rule. it a) violated the rule because it went directly from the top of layer 4/transport directly to the LAN MAC interface bypassing layer 3/4 interface b) violated the rule because it went directly to the LAN MAC interface (something that doesn't exist in OSI). misc. comments about OSI, GOSIP (as late as '92, federal gov. mandate that all networks be converted to OSI), and other things: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#xtphsp a very recent posting in comp.database.theory: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2004e.html#12 Pre-relational, post-relational, 1968 CODASYL "Survey of Data Base Systems" and a crypto mailing list http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/aadsm17.htm#17 PKI International Consortium the following, references token-ring "since its introduction in 1985" http://www.research.ibm.com/about/top_innovations_history.shtml which would have been 4mbit token-ring. we got a lot of heat for presentation we did where we first introduced the invention of 3-tier architecture using an ethernet as example (from both the SAA crowd and the token-ring crowds). The SAA crowd was somewhat trying to put the client/server genie back in the bottle (or at least a straight jacket) and some in the token-ring crowd were claiming 1mbit (which may have been based on early 3mbit enet w/o listen before transmit) thruput for typical ethernet compared to 2-3mbit thruput for typical 4mbit token-ring. various refs: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#3tier There was a paper in '86(?) ACM sigcomm proceedings (somewhere in boxes) showing effective thruput of 80-95 percent of physical media (8mbit-9.5mbit) for typical enet deployments. the new ARC building had been totally wired for cat5 ... for token-ring ... but by 1990, the people in ARC comp center had shown higher thruput over cat5 for 10mbit enet than for 16mbit token-ring in typical configurations. real quick pass with search engine isn't turning up any dates for bisync 3272 controller or sdlc. remember the protocol between the mainframe and the controller (either channel attach or via some networking interface with bisync or sdlc) was different than the protocol over the coax between the controller and the 327x terminal. I did turn up some page that said that the history of EDI (electronic data exchange standards) was closely related to bisync. -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 28 Apr 2004 15:31:17 GMT Organization: Micro Focus International Ltd Lines: 77 Message-ID: References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: mwojcik@newsguy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: p-356.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: xrn 9.00 Originator: mww@sen Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mww Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172757 In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: > >>I started correcting your manners when your nose started to run > >> snot. > Thanks but this service of yours of "teaching to correct the manners" > is not required. Oh, but it is, particularly if you want responses to your questions. > > >When someone is saying "don't bother me",what type of reply do you > > >expect from me. No one posted any such statement, or anything implying it. You misread and overreacted. What Bernd Felsche wrote was "I can't be bothered with reading [what you posted]", which is entirely different from "don't bother me". Bernd was making an excellent and helpful (had you chosen to pay attention rather than throwing a tantrum) point: your posting style is not conducive to starting the discussion you claim to desire. Of course, *had* someone posted something to the effect of "don't bother me", it would have been both curious (since silence would have been more effective) and slightly discourteous, but hardly deserving of a rude response. The proper thing to do would have been to ignore such a post. Further, your response to Bernd - "you were not invited" was nonsensical. You posted in a public forum; all responses are implicitly invited. I recommend a careful reading of RFC 1855, at a minimum; consulting other netiquette guides wouldn't hurt. > There is nothing wrong in my behaviour. There's quite a bit wrong with it. You took offense at an inoffensive comment. You're a newbie attacking group regulars. You clearly don't know that you're attacking regulars, which means you didn't lurk in the group before posting. > AnD iF yOu hAvE A pRobLeM In rEaDiNg mY ASCII tHeN I cAn'T > hElP. You can't capitalize and punctuate correctly? I find that hard to believe, but if it's true, you should not be posting to Usenet. There are general-consensus standards here, and those who can't meet them will find themselves ignored, so you'll merely be wasting your own time and everyone's bandwidth if you persist. > > This subthread is an attempt to train you in basic netiquette. > LOL You were never rude, eh? With that attitude you're unlikely to get much further help here. And spare us the AOLisms, please. > > If you are indeed as interested as you claim, you will be asking > > more questions. If you expect courtesy and answers, then you > > had better learn how not to annoy or piss off the bit gods whose > > brains you wish to pick. > A shear stupidity!!!! That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do it correctly. And why, pray tell, is it stupid to avoid annoying the people who can answer your question? > Now you should better mind about your foul language. See John Edwards' famous sermon of 8 July 1741, substituting "killfile" for the destination Edwards had in mind. Particularly the bits about being sorely provoked, and about why you're not there already. -- Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com Dude, it helps to be smart if you're gonna be mean. -- Darby Conley ###### From: mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 28 Apr 2004 15:56:34 GMT Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Organization: Micro Focus Intern Reply-To: mwojcik@newsguy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: p-187.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: xrn 9.00 Originator: mww@sen Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!129.250.169.16!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mww Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172759 In article , "NoSpam" writes: > > Yogesh ---- > > Your remarks are on-target, appropriate & well spoken. > > Bravo !! This from someone who posts anonymously, and has contributed in total perhaps a half-dozen substantive posts to the group, none of them particularly informative or useful. With friends like these, Yogesh really doesn't need to be cultivating more enemies. Particularly not among the real contributors. (And "well spoken" [sic]? If that's what "NoSpam" considers good prose, I'd hate to see what doesn't make the cut.) -- Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com Only the obscene machine has persisted jerky and jockeying and not knowing why I have never existed. Nor should. -- George Barker ###### Message-ID: <408FFD49.C0267520@comcast.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408e51d3$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.126.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s53 1083171502 24.1.126.198 (Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:58:22 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:58:22 GMT Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:58:22 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s53.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172764 Gene Wirchenko wrote: > > jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > > >In article , > > "Jack Peacock" wrote: > > [snip] > > >>A few years later I had an incredible stroke of luck when a installing a > >new > >>PDP-11/34 system for a customer. It came bundled with a DW II as the > >>console, but the owner told me he wanted to use his existing CRT instead, > >>and to "get rid" of the DECwriter. It wound up in my house and provided > >>many years of service before I traded it for a sat dish. :) > > > >You traded a beloved TTY for a Saturday night dinner ;-)). > > With us guys, they are not attached. Oh, wait, that was "TTY" > not "titty". Sorry, sorry. > It was also SNA...and *not* T & A... ;-) -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Message-ID: <408FFD6A.40A6EBCD@comcast.net> From: Charles Richmond Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net Organization: Canine Computer Center X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <8c160850.0404221250.2c92b641@posting.google.com> <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408e51d3$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa20c$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 32 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.126.198 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s53 1083171536 24.1.126.198 (Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:58:56 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:58:56 GMT Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:58:56 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.glorb.com!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s53.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172765 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > > In article , > Gene Wirchenko wrote: > >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > > > >>In article , > >> "Jack Peacock" wrote: > > > >[snip] > > > >>>A few years later I had an incredible stroke of luck when a installing a > >>new > >>>PDP-11/34 system for a customer. It came bundled with a DW II as the > >>>console, but the owner told me he wanted to use his existing CRT > instead, > >>>and to "get rid" of the DECwriter. It wound up in my house and provided > >>>many years of service before I traded it for a sat dish. :) > >> > >>You traded a beloved TTY for a Saturday night dinner ;-)). > > > > With us guys, they are not attached. Oh, wait, that was "TTY" > >not "titty". Sorry, sorry. > > And that involves _two_ TTYs, not one. > More like dual mini-floppies... ;-) -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 31 Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:18:46 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1083172726 24.71.223.147 (Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:18:46 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:18:46 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172772 On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 09:32:55 -0400 in alt.folklore.computers, "Bill Leary" wrote: >> I don't remember them getting called dumb when we were using >> them. I think they got dumb when the designers started >> putting some processing "smarts" in the TTY boxes. > >My earliest recollection of a terminal being called "dumb" was when we >started getting addressable cursors. The terminals which could not address >the cursor started being called "dumb." I do not, however, recall that we >called the addressable ones "intelligent." As time went on and terminals >became more "feature rich" (glup) the term "intelligent" emerged and the bar >on what was "dumb" started to rise. Again, using my personal experience, >"dumb" got stabilized somewhere above where the terminal could address a >cursor and, *perhaps*, do an "erase to end of line" but below where it could >do a scroll backwards, insert line and so forth. "truly dumb" was below the >addressable cursor level. ISTR the desktop Silent 700s being termed intelligent. They had dual data cassette tape program and data storage that could be up-/downloaded under host control and run key-to-tape programs with validation offline. I don't remember smart or intelligent being applied to video terminals with cursor addressing or any level of control character or escape sequence support. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 12:59:00 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 11:57:18 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (windows-nt) Cancel-Lock: sha1:lAtVVde/HhfV3/KTgGY4A8Hmdrg= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 53 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.202.78 X-Trace: sv3-RstA+vss04uAJ82AoR7Tn3WwDIaOhZ7c0KPA6+ChyqHgsN1SoBDmKWhdsXHeOelpujO5nNfh/Lyoa8E!ixQ4ntESAkXw0MTYke7Vuc3vr2uiuwJeGLZzWtgUZHiO3Dzkg9hDIwu2 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172779 Brian Inglis writes: > ISTR the desktop Silent 700s being termed intelligent. They had > dual data cassette tape program and data storage that could be > up-/downloaded under host control and run key-to-tape programs with > validation offline. > I don't remember smart or intelligent being applied to video > terminals with cursor addressing or any level of control character > or escape sequence support. the two vague recollections I have of some reference to "dump terminal" basically had to do with various forms of screen-scrapping & terminal scripting 1) my brother was an apple-ii salesman and then became a regional apple marketing rep. i was getting monthly archived tape dump from tymshare of all the vmshare conference files and making them available on various internal machines as well as on the HONE complex. I talked to him about using an apple-ii to login and emulate a terminal and "download" update/changed vmshare files to the apple-ii and then upload them to ibm mainframe. vmshare archives: http://vm.marist.edu/~vmshare/ misc. HONE refs: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html note that the same share organization http://www.share.org/ that sponsored vmshare on tymshare ... later sponsored a parallel pcshare conference ... which then would also get dumped to my monthly tape. 2) HSL's parasite/story. the internal network was typically referred to as VNET. There was an additional facility that emulated virtual 3270s over the network called PVM. You could have a 3270 terminal a) that talked directly to local PVM ... which then would provide simulated, direct channel attach 3270 support to local or remote machine or b) run a program under CMS that talked full-screen to your 3270 and interacted with PVM to talk to either the local system or remote systems. parasite/story used the programed interface to PVM to provide various terminal scripting facilities .... akin to the later HLLAPI stuff that run on a PC. misc. past parasite posts: http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001k.html#35 Newbie TOPS-10 7.03 question http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003i.html#73 Computer resources, past, present, and future http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2003j.html#24 Red Phosphor Terminal? it wasn't so much a case of a dumb real terminal vis-a-vis a smart real terminal ... but a (dumb) real terminal vis-a-vis a (smart, programmable) emulated terminal total topic drift into commercial time-sharing service bureaus (including tymshare): http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subtopic.html#timeshare -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler | http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:06:19 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:09:42 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 19 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-2PWJE+C86BPWbcxpXILuiM5+x09yIJGq2f0H85c8s9G2frD3e/AecMUZkJk1Xamgo0xKf15MCFC9zMh!hwURKvcGbHDzPJoHB5vuanxH5idAZFkPIrkfW45km0P1MAK1k4h9SqcQLkg= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.wirehub.nl!amsnews01.chello.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172780 "Brian Inglis" wrote in message news:iepv801got3u4djhjs2i1qh96cevdd3jve@4ax.com... > ISTR the desktop Silent 700s being termed intelligent. > ((..details omitted..)) Ah, so there's another take on it. I distinctly recall the VT100 being called "intelligent," but I don't remember WHO called it that. That is, I don't remember if it was marketing materials or such, but I do know that we programmers who had to make them work with the products called them such and when we spec'd terminal requirements we specified that the terminal attached to the product required a minimum level of intelligence (and used that word) and then went on to specify what command sequences it had to respond to. This was in the late '80's. - Bill ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:07:10 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa555$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:10:33 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-5ev/GlD5fZrafz8+GFwlmws+mG94svY3HtKgViHk2h8Cc/3LXZ3RMK8+/2bkZOpel5BtJ9UtYj7FP2h!hr4mdYkzFX8xDLmtz/vBifYa6u+oD00CNcbOFBJ/IwzfPyyUI1Wi2biHK8M= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172781 wrote in message news:408fa555$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > We're trying to decide this based on tech details. I don't think > smart/dumb got started with the engineers. See, I think the "smart" or "intelligent" part was (as you say) marketing driven, and then got picked up by the technical side. But I think the "dumb" part was rooted in the technical (engineering, or at least programming) side. It's also possible that it sort of just sprung up in common usage at about the same time. It was already common from before CRTs to use terminology about, say, a disk drive to say it was "too dumb" to stop seeking at the end of the disk, you had to stop telling it to step. > Can you recall when > you started hearing the terms and how they were used? I got > a feeling that this was a marketing-generated doodad. - Bill ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 13:08:05 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:11:28 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-8XJTUW4KvwEfonPaUFngZDDf/bZ92ihGjOl3aQ5CxabXfd5DvC518B0ZYhaTzy3PjbyPZ0QZ9PwfCq2!lrkdtfw2MRdWKn5On2IoXZdq8WX6B3e0Tc0+/qulD7/G7xb7M70bjGsqS/w= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news2.euro.net!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172782 wrote in message news:408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >started getting addressable cursors. The terminals which could not > address the cursor started being called "dumb." > > IIRC, not even then. Your experience, it seems, was somewhat different from mine. What's your geographic area? I'm in the Rte. 128/495 Mass. area. Computervision, some small outfits using DG equipment, etc. > The VT05 was kind of a cursor addresser (every > time somebody tried to write code to use the display, > lots of cursing was done) Well, that too... > Could "dumb" be when the program had to do the cursor movements > by hand? A distinct possibility. - Bill ###### From: mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 15:39:38 -0400 Lines: 12 Message-ID: <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ts1-168.thewire.ca (69.90.77.168) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083183139 15330319 I 69.90.77.168 ([164636]) X-Newsreader: VSoup v1.2.9.37Beta [95/NT] Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ts1-168.thewire.CA!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172798 In article , mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: > >In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >> A shear stupidity!!!! > >That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do >it correctly. I think he intended it as a cutting remark. Mel. ###### From: Pete Verdon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:50:21 +0100 Organization: University of Warwick, UK Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: usenet@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc2-warw5-4-0-cust78.brhm.cable.ntl.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk 1083181821 5298 81.109.84.78 (28 Apr 2004 19:50:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@csv.warwick.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:50:21 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 X-No-Archive: Yes Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!news100.image.dk!fi.sn.net!newsfeed2.fi.sn.net!mephistopheles.news.clara.net!news.clara.net!wagner.news.clara.net!193.60.199.18.MISMATCH!feed2.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!warwick!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172793 Michael Black wrote: >> ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >> (to BAH of all people!) >>>Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since >>>this is a open group > Do you think this guy is "Airy Bean" who stumbled in here some months > back, but now under a different name? No, I think he's a genuine person with a genuine query, but who has unfortunately (and I really do mean unfortunately) failed to learn any manners in an online context. Probably a result of too much time spent in Web forums and lesser newsgroups where this sort of behaviour is the norm. A less-than-perfect grasp of English doesn't help, though that's hardly his fault. Pete ###### X-Abuse-Report: abuse@teranews.com Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:34:29 GMT Lines: 31 From: Michael Ross Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!hydra.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.teranews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172800 On 27 Apr 2004 17:14:52 GMT, et472@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Michael Black) wrote: >Michael Ross (mike@corestore.org) writes: >> On 26 Apr 2004 11:10:17 -0700, ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) >> wrote: >> >> (to BAH of all people!) >> >>>Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since >>>this is a open group >> >> Whooooooooooosh... >> >> I refer the Honourable Gentleman to the reply I have given on many >> previous occasions: Healy's First Law of Holes. >> >Do you think this guy is "Airy Bean" who stumbled in here some months >back, but now under a different name? These comments seem a replay >of that episode. Careful with your followups Mr. Black - makes it look like you're referring to *me* (Mike Ross) when you say 'this guy'. I hope you're referring to yogesh; I have never posted a word to usenet, other than under my own name. Mike http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' ###### From: Giles Todd Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:59:41 +0200 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: g@todd.nu Cancel-Lock: sha1:PiMyQPcGANxFJsKGbTOligPgKos= References: X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) X-No-Archive: yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-NFilter: 1.2.1-b1 X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 15 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-06!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!phb!nobody Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172809 On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 08:37:03 -0600, Anne & Lynn Wheeler wrote: > There was a paper in '86(?) ACM sigcomm proceedings (somewhere in > boxes) showing effective thruput of 80-95 percent of physical media > (8mbit-9.5mbit) for typical enet deployments. the new ARC building had > been totally wired for cat5 ... for token-ring ... but by 1990, the > people in ARC comp center had shown higher thruput over cat5 for > 10mbit enet than for 16mbit token-ring in typical configurations. Is this the one? http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/WRL-88-4.pdf Giles. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:07:10 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Reply-To: Anne & Lynn Wheeler References: From: Anne & Lynn Wheeler Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:07:18 -0600 Message-ID: Organization: Wheeler&Wheeler User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:V8Nrws6mCUpbHZqMDTrIooDZAqQ= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 10 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.161.202.78 X-Trace: sv3-1OjX+L+FOxgmGOxySdKkVFl/25dlV7qZ1vJroohdFaxVRQ+C3QxnZV4wA0IPqZrpbJAnlI/ghA83ffu!PEU20McLjWm+nL+o2L42KFnXNJxDTyWc+K2oC7fyNBMFqQ3SPR0ki3Cali7/8g== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172810 Giles Todd writes: > Is this the one? > > http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/WRL-88-4.pdf yep, "Measured Capacity of Ethernet: Myths and Reality" in proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM, 8/16-19, 1988, V18N4 -- Anne & Lynn Wheeler - http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/ ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 28 Apr 04 14:49:32 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 38 Message-ID: <1691.614T1600T8895033@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa555$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-210.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.online.be!cyclone.bc.net!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172812 In article Bill_Leary@msn.com (Bill Leary) writes: > wrote in message >news:408fa555$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >> We're trying to decide this based on tech details. I don't think >> smart/dumb got started with the engineers. > >See, I think the "smart" or "intelligent" part was (as you say) >marketing driven, and then got picked up by the technical side. That makes sense. Marketroids will say anything if they think it will help them sell something. >But I think the "dumb" part was rooted in the technical (engineering, >or at least programming) side. It's also possible that it sort of >just sprung up in common usage at about the same time. It was already >common from before CRTs to use terminology about, say, a disk drive to >say it was "too dumb" to stop seeking at the end of the disk, you had >to stop telling it to step. I started out in the mainframe world. Any terminal there had to have enough smarts to do its own screen editing, speak mainframe protocols (e.g. bisync), and dump an entire (or a partial) screenload of data when an appropriate poll came by. We took these kinds of capabilities for granted. It was a bit of a shock when I discovered how simple async terminals were in comparison. Next to a block-mode, polled, synchronous mainframe terminal, any async terminal less than a VT-100 was definitely "dumb" (although refreshingly simple). -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:52:48 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa555$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <1691.614T1600T8895033@kltpzyxm.invalid> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 19:56:12 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 25 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-nbosyhs6Rlzk+puPWF4LOSTK1EKxnSPgPzAuPizymAULbpp2ofRjOhe7LDr6QqFjHW7Ikgxgxxk6Y/t!NyYf/vJ0MEjX8PeNjwK8AMnmIFGewyfr6k0cSVuQWt3eGQAhcjeyLiA8gcE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172820 "Charlie Gibbs" wrote in message news:1691.614T1600T8895033@kltpzyxm.invalid... > I started out in the mainframe world. Any terminal there had to > have enough smarts to do its own screen editing, speak mainframe > protocols (e.g. bisync), and dump an entire (or a partial) > screenload of data when an appropriate poll came by. We took > these kinds of capabilities for granted. It was a bit of a > shock when I discovered how simple async terminals were in > comparison. Next to a block-mode, polled, synchronous > mainframe terminal, any async terminal less than a VT-100 > was definitely "dumb" (although refreshingly simple). A big difference in background. I never worked with mainframes at all. Well, only a little, and only way after micros were well entrenched, and at that point I was only involved in making micros cooperate with the protocols and methods you mention. You've just cleared up something for me, though. I could never quite resolve how it was that it seemed that those main frame terminals were doing editing things before they were available anywhere I was aware of. It seems that's exactly what the case was. They weren't available anywhere *I* was aware of, because I wasn't involved in the mainframe world. Thanks for that peek into the other side. - Bill ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> From: Bernd Felsche User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:16:11 +0800 Message-ID: Lines: 19 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.144.24 X-Trace: 1083202262 freenews.iinet.net.au 16596 203.59.144.24 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!HSNX.atgi.net!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!freenews.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172823 mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: >In article , >mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >> >>In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>> A shear stupidity!!!! >> >>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do >>it correctly. >I think he intended it as a cutting remark. Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! ###### From: Roland Hutchinson Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:33:02 -0400 Lines: 27 Message-ID: References: <4087d102$0$16470$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: pool-68-162-21-179.nwrk.east.verizon.net (68.162.21.179) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083209582 14907228 I 68.162.21.179 ([99522]) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!pool-68-162-21-179.nwrk.east.verizon.NET!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172827 In article on Wednesday 28 April 2004 21:16, Bernd Felsche wrote: > mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: > >>In article , >>mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >>> >>>In article , >>>ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>>> A shear stupidity!!!! >>> >>>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do >>>it correctly. > >>I think he intended it as a cutting remark. > > Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. You realize, of course, that a flurry of "shear" puns is just going to make an already tense situation tensor. -- Roland Hutchinson Will play viola da gamba for food. NB mail to my.spamtrap [at] verizon.net is heavily filtered to remove spam. If your message looks like spam I may not see it. ###### X-Abuse-Report: abuse@teranews.com Message-ID: <611746a78b0cef15e68e0a7d50548fec@news.teranews.com> Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 03:44:21 GMT Lines: 32 From: Michael Ross Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!hydra.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news.teranews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172829 On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:33:02 -0400, Roland Hutchinson wrote: >In article on Wednesday 28 April >2004 21:16, Bernd Felsche wrote: > >> mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: >> >>>In article , >>>mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >>>> >>>>In article , >>>>ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>>>> A shear stupidity!!!! >>>> >>>>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do >>>>it correctly. >> >>>I think he intended it as a cutting remark. >> >> Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. > >You realize, of course, that a flurry of "shear" puns is just going to make >an already tense situation tensor. Give him a break... he's already feeling sufficently sheepish... Mike http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 28 Apr 2004 21:55:55 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 7 Message-ID: References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083214555 16535 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2004 04:55:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 04:55:55 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!newsfeed.icl.net!proxad.net!209.98.3.200.MISMATCH!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172833 I have definitely improved the writitng style of mine since the first response I got from this group.And now giving adequate attention to puncutations and grammatics.And I am really thankful to this group for that. regards, Yogesh ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 28 Apr 04 21:13:45 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 28 Message-ID: <867.614T2277T12735486@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-955.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172832 In article bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: >mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: > >>In article , >>mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >> >>>In article , >>>ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>> >>>> A shear stupidity!!!! >>> >>>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, >>>do try to do it correctly. >> >>I think he intended it as a cutting remark. > >Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. He probably thinks it sharpens his wit. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa555$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <1691.614T1600T8895033@kltpzyxm.invalid> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 26 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 05:22:29 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw3no 1083216149 24.71.223.147 (Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:22:29 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:22:29 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw3no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172836 On 28 Apr 04 14:49:32 -0800 in alt.folklore.computers, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: >I started out in the mainframe world. Any terminal there had to >have enough smarts to do its own screen editing, speak mainframe >protocols (e.g. bisync), and dump an entire (or a partial) >screenload of data when an appropriate poll came by. We took >these kinds of capabilities for granted. It was a bit of a >shock when I discovered how simple async terminals were in >comparison. Next to a block-mode, polled, synchronous >mainframe terminal, any async terminal less than a VT-100 >was definitely "dumb" (although refreshingly simple). VT-100s were definitely in the dumb category too, comparatively. It took a lot of code and escape sequences to make a VT-100 behave like a 3270 screen. OTOH IIRC the 3270 smarts were all in the controller, and the terminal was really dumb, sending switch and keyboard codes to the controller, updating a display position on the screen, displaying an error code like KBD LCK, or maybe that was a sequence of screen updates. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 31 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 05:43:08 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1083217388 24.71.223.147 (Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:43:08 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:43:08 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172837 On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:09:42 -0400 in alt.folklore.computers, "Bill Leary" wrote: >"Brian Inglis" wrote in message >news:iepv801got3u4djhjs2i1qh96cevdd3jve@4ax.com... >> ISTR the desktop Silent 700s being termed intelligent. >> ((..details omitted..)) > >Ah, so there's another take on it. > >I distinctly recall the VT100 being called "intelligent," but I don't >remember WHO called it that. That is, I don't remember if it was marketing >materials or such, but I do know that we programmers who had to make them >work with the products called them such and when we spec'd terminal >requirements we specified that the terminal attached to the product required >a minimum level of intelligence (and used that word) and then went on to >specify what command sequences it had to respond to. This was in the late >'80's. Late 1970s, early 1980s, it was only intelligent if it supported some kind of local processing or language, like the TI S700, DEC VT103, VT125, and ReGIS graphics terminals VK100 GIGI, VT240ff. The latest VTs are still available here: http://www.boundless.com/Text_Terminals/VT -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> <867.614T2277T12735486@kltpzyxm.invalid> From: Bernd Felsche User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 19:31:01 +0800 Message-ID: Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.144.24 X-Trace: 1083238260 freenews.iinet.net.au 4656 203.59.144.24 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!209.10.34.151!newsfeed.sjc.globix.net!HSNX.atgi.net!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!freenews.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172846 "Charlie Gibbs" writes: >In article >bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: >>mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: >> >>>In article , >>>mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >>> >>>>In article , >>>>ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>>> >>>>> A shear stupidity!!!! >>>> >>>>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, >>>>do try to do it correctly. >>> >>>I think he intended it as a cutting remark. >>Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. >He probably thinks it sharpens his wit. In that case, he'd be lapping it up. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! ###### From: Té Rowan Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:44:06 +0000 Organization: Word used by Space Aliens Lines: 51 Message-ID: References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp162-152.as.mi.is Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.simnet.is 1083253446 29150 217.151.162.152 (29 Apr 2004 15:44:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@simnet.is NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:44:06 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!hydra.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!209.98.3.207!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!ash.uu.net!news.simnet.is!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172890 Saith BAH: >Could "dumb" be when the program had to do the cursor movements >by hand? I looked up in the Jargon File (4.4.7) to see what it said: glass tty: /glas T·T·Y/, /glas ti´tee/, n. [obs.] A terminal that has a display screen but which, because of hardware or software limitations, behaves like a teletype or some other printing terminal, thereby combining the disadvantages of both: like a printing terminal, it can't do fancy display hacks, and like a display terminal, it doesn't produce hard copy. An example is the early ‘dumb’ version of Lear-Siegler ADM 3 (without cursor control). See [tube], [tty]; compare [dumb terminal]. See [TV Typewriters] (Appendix A) for an interesting true story about a glass tty. dumb terminal: n. A terminal that is one step above a [glass tty], having a minimally addressable cursor but no on-screen editing or other features normally supported by a [smart terminal]. Once upon a time, when glass ttys were common and addressable cursors were something special, what is now called a dumb terminal could pass for a smart terminal. smart terminal: n. 1. A terminal that has enough computing capability to render graphics or to offload some kind of front-end processing from the computer it talks to. The development of workstations and personal computers has made this term and the product it describes semi-obsolescent, but one may still hear variants of the phrase act like a smart terminal used to describe the behavior of workstations or PCs with respect to programs that execute almost entirely out of a remote [server]'s storage, using local devices as displays. 2. obs. Any terminal with an addressable cursor; the opposite of a [glass tty]. Today, a terminal with merely an addressable cursor, but with none of the more-powerful features mentioned in sense 1, is called a [dumb terminal]. There is a classic quote from Rob Pike (inventor of the [blit] terminal): “A smart terminal is not a smart*ass* terminal, but rather a terminal you can educate.” This illustrates a common design problem: The attempt to make peripherals (or anything else) intelligent sometimes results in finicky, rigid ‘special features’ that become just so much dead weight if you try to use the device in any way the designer didn't anticipate. Flexibility and programmability, on the other hand, are *really* smart. Compare [hook]. -- Té Rowan (reynirhs@mi.is) ###### From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:53:21 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <2hd190dcisa3g5ku9f2prgjgusk3bossbd@4ax.com> Reply-To: genew@mail.ocis.net References: <408a672a$0$28896$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <_b-dnY5wX49a5xfdRVn-gg@comcast.com> <408a8726$0$28900$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408bb1a6$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408e51d3$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408FFD49.C0267520@comcast.net> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 26 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172883 Charles Richmond wrote: >Gene Wirchenko wrote: >> >> jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: [snip] >> >You traded a beloved TTY for a Saturday night dinner ;-)). >> >> With us guys, they are not attached. Oh, wait, that was "TTY" >> not "titty". Sorry, sorry. >> >It was also SNA...and *not* T & A... ;-) ^^^ Hey, what is this? I was only using half-duplex! Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:53:23 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: genew@mail.ocis.net References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <2pa3m1xh1m.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 17 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!216.168.1.162!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172884 Bernd Felsche wrote: [snip] >I'm moderately amused by the coincidence of Subject and actual >discussion; dumb terminal vs terminally dumb. As well as stupid, "dumb" means unable to talk. We can hope. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:53:24 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: genew@mail.ocis.net References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 19 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!216.168.1.162!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172885 Pete Verdon wrote: [snip] >A less-than-perfect grasp of English doesn't help, though that's hardly his >fault. Of course it is. We just do not have to upbraid him for it. (There is plenty enough else to do so for.) Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:53:25 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <30e1905a0e9o093aghmbfaopf17vqvimer@4ax.com> Reply-To: genew@mail.ocis.net References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 17 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.news2me.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172886 Roland Hutchinson wrote: [snip] >You realize, of course, that a flurry of "shear" puns is just going to make >an already tense situation tensor. ^^^^^ Mister, in this group, we use binary. That is "twos". Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 08:53:27 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: <04e190tuofnjvm8pfbumm4osrs44o4hlad@4ax.com> Reply-To: genew@mail.ocis.net References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> <611746a78b0cef15e68e0a7d50548fec@news.teranews.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 39 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!news.octanews.net!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172887 Michael Ross wrote: >On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 23:33:02 -0400, Roland Hutchinson > wrote: > >>In article on Wednesday 28 April >>2004 21:16, Bernd Felsche wrote: >> >>> mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: >>> >>>>In article , >>>>mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>In article , >>>>>ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>>>>> A shear stupidity!!!! >>>>> >>>>>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do >>>>>it correctly. >>> >>>>I think he intended it as a cutting remark. >>> >>> Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. >> >>You realize, of course, that a flurry of "shear" puns is just going to make >>an already tense situation tensor. > >Give him a break... he's already feeling sufficently sheepish... The worst sort of pun. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### From: ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 29 Apr 2004 09:34:34 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 9 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.17.62.20 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083256475 31774 127.0.0.1 (29 Apr 2004 16:34:35 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:34:35 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172891 How were the connection of the keyboard (and in case mouse)of the dumb terminal managed? As from the discussion so far,it is clear to me that first the keyboard/mouse signals were sent to the Main Processing Unit and in turn the Main Processing Unit sent the output signals to the dumb terminal.? regds, Yogesh ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:46:50 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: TCS Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:46:50 -0500 Lines: 29 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.184.183 X-Trace: sv3-sPN9Uw9ILg7o7cJD2wBmWkmz+GXXshkJwm6zjQljfKkl32/XgJBDdTxRkbt+6LwJNixTkfFwkqxu4Lq!TReTLloiqJ3nkvWvRXlfP2TN9GW291oZIpEN5vxf2qOGUAQyQoyz8HbP6ZfQtJ1U2xPBVXGqfc0D!eubWfSczp933WSx7l6DMS5CKmw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172892 On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:44:06 +0000, Té Rowan wrote: >Saith BAH: >>Could "dumb" be when the program had to do the cursor movements >>by hand? >I looked up in the Jargon File (4.4.7) >to see what it said: >glass tty: /glas T·T·Y/, /glas ti´tee/, n. >[obs.] A terminal that has a display screen but which, because of >hardware or software limitations, behaves like a teletype or some >other printing terminal, thereby combining the disadvantages of both: >dumb terminal: n. >A terminal that is one step above a [glass tty], having a minimally >addressable cursor but no on-screen editing or other features normally >smart terminal: n. >1. A terminal that has enough computing capability to render graphics >or to offload some kind of front-end processing from the computer it >talks to. The development of workstations and personal computers has >made this term and the product it describes semi-obsolescent, but one glass-tty and dumb terminal are the same AFAIK and the key difference between a dumb and a smart terminal is the presence of a microprocessor versus doing everything in hardware (a big board of MSI logic). ###### From: Pete Verdon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:57:12 +0100 Organization: University of Warwick, UK Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: usenet@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc2-warw5-4-0-cust78.brhm.cable.ntl.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk 1083257834 27444 81.109.84.78 (29 Apr 2004 16:57:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@csv.warwick.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:57:14 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 X-No-Archive: Yes Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.esat.net!feeder.news.heanet.ie!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!feed2.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!warwick!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172893 yogesh wrote: > How were the connection of the keyboard (and in case mouse)of the dumb > terminal managed? If you mean the connection of the keyboard to the rest of the terminal, I imagine that was entirely down to the manufacturer. A lot of the earlier ones were one single unit anyway (keyboard and screen in one box), and of course the printing ones didn't have a screen at all (and I'm not aware of any whose keyboard was separate). I don't think any of the devices we're discussing would have had a mouse. > As from the discussion so far,it is clear to me that first the > keyboard/mouse signals were sent to the Main Processing Unit and in > turn the Main Processing Unit sent the output signals to the dumb > terminal.? Yup, that's pretty much it. Weird mainframe stuff notwithstanding, when you pressed a key the appropriate ASCII code was sent down the wire to the computer. Simple as that. If the computer chose, it might then send back the same character, so that you could see on the screen what you'd just typed. In the simplest case, that's all there is to it. Many (most?) terminals have a "local echo" ability, allowing them to display the characters they send so that the computer doesn't have to send them back. If you had this turned on and the computer thought you didn't (so echoed your keystrokes for you as well), you'd get tteexxtt lliikkee tthhiiss,, though only one of each character would actually go to the program. Pete ###### From: David Powell Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 18:33:57 +0100 Lines: 49 Message-ID: <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> Reply-To: ddotpowell@icuknet.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: 21.24.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.net (194.153.24.21) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083260011 16238708 I 194.153.24.21 ([161127]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsmi-eu.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!21.24.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.NET!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172895 In article <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com>, Brian Inglis in alt.folklore.computers wrote: >On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:09:42 -0400 in alt.folklore.computers, "Bill >Leary" wrote: > >>"Brian Inglis" wrote in message >>news:iepv801got3u4djhjs2i1qh96cevdd3jve@4ax.com... >>> ISTR the desktop Silent 700s being termed intelligent. >>> ((..details omitted..)) >> >>Ah, so there's another take on it. >> >>I distinctly recall the VT100 being called "intelligent," but I don't >>remember WHO called it that. That is, I don't remember if it was marketing >>materials or such, but I do know that we programmers who had to make them >>work with the products called them such and when we spec'd terminal >>requirements we specified that the terminal attached to the product required >>a minimum level of intelligence (and used that word) and then went on to >>specify what command sequences it had to respond to. This was in the late >>'80's. > >Late 1970s, early 1980s, it was only intelligent if it supported some >kind of local processing or language, like the TI S700, DEC VT103, >VT125, and ReGIS graphics terminals VK100 GIGI, VT240ff. > DEC used the term "Intelligent terminal" to describe the PDT-11/xxx series, essentially a VT100 with a LSI-11 inside, and either inboard TU58s (yuck!) or outboard floppies. Late 70s. VT125 was described as a "smart" terminal. Can't resist quoting DEC's marketing blurb for the VT05. "Timesharing systems are pioneering a new way of life in many scientific and technical disciplines. The time spent by professional workers at the terminal in dialog with a computer is critical productive time. The obviously strong need for terminal equipment that increases this productivity is satisfied by the VT05 Alphanumeric Display Terminal. It is designed to make the professional's "on-line" time totally useful." I'll take an ASR33 over VT05, anytime, at least I can spill my tea into the kybd with impunity. Regards, David P. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 59 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:58:32 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.102.87 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news1.nokia.com 1083261512 172.22.102.87 (Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:58:32 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:58:32 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!news.osn.de!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!news-stoc.telia.net!news-stoa.telia.net!telia.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172896 In article , Pete Verdon wrote: > yogesh wrote: >> How were the connection of the keyboard (and in case mouse)of the dumb >> terminal managed? > If you mean the connection of the keyboard to the rest of the terminal, I > imagine that was entirely down to the manufacturer. A lot of the earlier > ones were one single unit anyway (keyboard and screen in one box), and of > course the printing ones didn't have a screen at all (and I'm not aware of > any whose keyboard was separate). I don't think any of the devices we're > discussing would have had a mouse. Though, if someone were to claim that these don't have mouses, period ... I imagine someone else would find one with a mouse rather quickly. Say, a HP T1010, GT210, or GT310. ... oh dear. Well, those would more probably be something built around a general-purpose hardware platform and OS, and embedded terminal emulation software on a flash or something. "Windows-Based Terminal" ... yuck ... fortunately it'll be a while before we run out of old 70096s. Well, a T1010 has PS/2 keyboard and mouse connectors, the only model of those that I have actually seen. And parallel. And RJ45 for ethernet. Wouldn't be surprised if there was USB in there too. Wonder why they've left SCSI out ...? The thing probably has more processing power than the oldest servers still supported by current versions of HP-UX... wouldn't it be fun to have more processing power in your "dumb terminal" console than in the actual server? >> As from the discussion so far,it is clear to me that first the >> keyboard/mouse signals were sent to the Main Processing Unit and in >> turn the Main Processing Unit sent the output signals to the dumb >> terminal.? > > Yup, that's pretty much it. Weird mainframe stuff notwithstanding, when you > pressed a key the appropriate ASCII code was sent down the wire to the > computer. Simple as that. If the computer chose, it might then send back > the same character, so that you could see on the screen what you'd just > typed. In the simplest case, that's all there is to it. > Many (most?) > terminals have a "local echo" ability, allowing them to display the > characters they send so that the computer doesn't have to send them back. > If you had this turned on and the computer thought you didn't (so echoed > your keystrokes for you as well), you'd get tteexxtt lliikkee tthhiiss,, > though only one of each character would actually go to the program. I have, in fact, encountered a device that pretty much required local echo to be turned on in the terminal as the thing didn't echo back ... or at least I couldn't figure out how to make it do so. And this was a fairly recent thing too, an obscure piece of lab equipment. -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### From: mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 29 Apr 2004 19:33:16 GMT Organization: Micro Focus International Ltd Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: mwojcik@newsguy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: p-415.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: xrn 9.00 Originator: mww@sen Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.glorb.com!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mww Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172904 In article , Anne & Lynn Wheeler writes: > > which has Zurich research publishing specification for token-ring > in '81 and IEEE802.5 token ring published in '83 Interesting, though it doesn't tell us when Token Ring adapters for PCs became available. I ran across one site which mentioned commercial TR adapters in 1986; it doesn't say whether they're PC adapters, but that seems likely. I think I first used a PC TR adapter in 1988. > [snip entertaining stuff about how nothing fit into OSI] > > the following, references token-ring "since its introduction in 1985" > http://www.research.ibm.com/about/top_innovations_history.shtml > which would have been 4mbit token-ring. That also doesn't mention PCs specifically, but that's probably the right year. So TR connectivity was probably introduced close to the same time as 3270-on-a-card (Irma et al), but SNA software with 3270 emulation might have lagged a bit behind it, I suppose. > ... some in the token-ring crowd were > claiming 1mbit (which may have been based on early 3mbit enet w/o > listen before transmit) thruput for typical ethernet compared to > 2-3mbit thruput for typical 4mbit token-ring. Early Ethernet, at slow speeds and using a bus topology, did have significant weaknesses compared to TR, IMO. However, Ethernet's lower cost meant people built big Ethernet networks anyway, which in turn drove hardware innovation that more than compensated for the non-deterministic delays of CSMA/CD. CAT-5/5e and its increased speeds on the one hand, and switching on the other, let Ethernet walk away from even 16Mb Token Ring. In my callow youth, I thought that was a shame, as TR seemed so much more elegant and interesting. (I had an old PS/2 Model 25 which I used to run a freeware TR monitor on our network, and it had a lot of geek appeal.) These days I'm more pragmatic - switched Ethernet gets the job done. I hadn't heard before that 3Mb Ethernet didn't have CSMA ("listen before transmit"). > There was a paper in '86(?) ACM sigcomm proceedings (somewhere in > boxes) showing effective thruput of 80-95 percent of physical media > (8mbit-9.5mbit) for typical enet deployments. the new ARC building had > been totally wired for cat5 ... for token-ring ... but by 1990, the > people in ARC comp center had shown higher thruput over cat5 for > 10mbit enet than for 16mbit token-ring in typical configurations. Yes, I've seen some of those studies. While CSMA/CD has no bound on wait time in theory (since an adapter could keep losing the access race), in practice the chances of any adapter having to wait significantly more than any other are negligible, and when collisions get too high the cards back off just enough to keep the medium pretty busy and the network as a whole fairly efficient. > I did turn up some page that said that the history of EDI (electronic > data exchange standards) was closely related to bisync. Interesting. Hadn't read that before either. -- Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com Most people believe that anything that is true is true for a reason. These theorems show that some things are true for no reason at all, i.e., accidentally, or at random. -- G J Chaitin ###### From: mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 29 Apr 2004 19:38:12 GMT Organization: Micro Focus International Ltd Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> -wire.com> Reply-To: mwojcik@newsguy.com NNTP-Posting-Host: p-522.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: xrn 9.00 Originator: mww@sen Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news.tiscali.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!mww Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172905 In article <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com>, mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: > In article , > mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: > > > >In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: > >> A shear stupidity!!!! > > > >That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do > >it correctly. > > I think he intended it as a cutting remark. Perhaps; but hairy though English orthography may be, we should all try to do our best when snipping at one another, lest we wind up sheepishly admitting defeat. -- Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 29 Apr 04 12:18:03 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 27 Message-ID: <1251.615T150T7383871@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-898.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newsfeed.news2me.com!sjc1.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!129.250.175.17!pln-w!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172929 In article ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >I have definitely improved the writitng style of mine since the first >response I got from this group.And now giving adequate attention to >puncutations and grammatics.And I am really thankful to this group for >that. I have noticed an improvement. The one additional thing you can do is to leave at least one space - and preferably two - between sentences, instead of running them together. Thanks for your attention to this - the easier you make your posts to read, the more likely the rest of us will read them. Few things turn other people off more quickly than having to wade through poorly-written posts; most of us just don't have the time. And if people find it a waste of their time to try to read your posts, then it's a waste of your own time writing them in the first place. Now... did you have more folklore-related questions? They're a lot more fun than this sort of stuff... -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:36:25 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:39:51 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 15 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-R9vHCrkVvVkMTmwRrzfwgd2fQ46YHq0F4CItfkuvCyQ+UxlWPBTv0k1xzCbmlDEAELnsYkSE0i4h+h1!ABl0TMnNZqJ/Idl1+8sfmuW8ba0+zvGVBTPcg6u4QYCRLZyJvd3MQX+dqsM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!38.144.126.70.MISMATCH!feed3.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172910 "David Powell" wrote in message news:42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com... > I'll take an ASR33 over VT05, anytime, at least I can spill my tea > into the kybd with impunity. Well, everyone has their own criteria for choosing equipment. Tea spill survivability was never at the top of my check off list, but then again, in over 30 years of using things with keyboards I've never* spilled anything in one. - Bill ------- * Every time I tell anyone that I figure I've just tempted the Mist Demons. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 16:38:21 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:41:47 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 23 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-gRd8T5FAuQQAeirTsjj63LtSRzcFXVr4DoLZANA1eAkjuwv2jG3lYjrB7ueHz85FJCHLz1l1rK9/yCZ!WJbB4kP11m2qlm9ytwzh2f81u6gAYttS9d2RclsI5nD+gFagCCWR3zqReMM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!newsfeed.tiscali.ch!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172912 "Té Rowan" wrote in message news:vd7290deln2s96ot2shdae1pau4quf7sts@4ax.com... > Saith BAH: > > >Could "dumb" be when the program had to do the cursor movements > >by hand? > > I looked up in the Jargon File (4.4.7) > to see what it said: I looked some of those up too, but skipped getting into them since our discussion here seemed to be experience oriented. I was, however, pleased to see that apparently my own experience with the ADM3 as a classical cursorless dumb terminal wasn't unique. Since you have brought up the definitions, though, I find that they seem to be fairly good. and pretty consistent with my own experiences. Other comments anyone? - Bill ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 29 Apr 04 14:39:39 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 26 Message-ID: <1196.615T1972T8795473@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-901.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news-stu1.dfn.de!news-kar1.dfn.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!news.cambrium.nl!news.cambrium.nl!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!diablo.voicenet.com!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172925 In article ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >How were the connection of the keyboard (and in case mouse)of the >dumb terminal managed? >As from the discussion so far,it is clear to me that first the >keyboard/mouse signals were sent to the Main Processing Unit and in >turn the Main Processing Unit sent the output signals to the dumb >terminal.? Exactly. You could think of the keyboard and the display as two entirely separate devices which just happened to be in the same box. Mainframe terminals, on the other hand, tended to go through the screen buffer both ways; anything you type would update the screen image until you hit a special "transmit" key, at which time the data would be sent to the host computer. Some applications used the terminal's screen buffer as intermediate storage, which made it easier to keep track of each user's state when handling multiple terminals. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 29 Apr 04 14:41:18 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 20 Message-ID: <951.615T906T8814451@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: p-902.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172927 In article mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com (Mikko Nahkola) writes: >Well, a T1010 has PS/2 keyboard and mouse connectors, the only model of >those that I have actually seen. And parallel. And RJ45 for ethernet. >Wouldn't be surprised if there was USB in there too. Wonder why they've >left SCSI out ...? The thing probably has more processing power than >the oldest servers still supported by current versions of HP-UX... >wouldn't it be fun to have more processing power in your "dumb >terminal" console than in the actual server? I was in that situation with my IMSAI - its 2-MHz 8080 was dwarfed by the 4-MHz Z80 in the Heath 19 terminal attached to it. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 18 Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:52:58 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1083282778 24.71.223.147 (Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:52:58 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 17:52:58 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172924 On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 11:46:50 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, TCS wrote: >glass-tty and dumb terminal are the same AFAIK and the key difference between >a dumb and a smart terminal is the presence of a microprocessor versus >doing everything in hardware (a big board of MSI logic). MSI versus microprocessor is merely an economic decision and does not by itself make the terminal smart, e.g. VT52 was MSI and VT100 was microprocessor, but neither were smart. ISTM that smart refers to the ability to offload non-trivial processing to the terminal, as stated in the jargon entry. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 30 Apr 2004 00:49:25 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 13 Message-ID: References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1083286165 21257 134.117.136.48 (30 Apr 2004 00:49:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 30 Apr 2004 00:49:25 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.glorb.com!news-spur1.glorb.com!news.kjsl.com!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172930 "Bill Leary" (Bill_Leary@msn.com) writes: > "David Powell" wrote in message > news:42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com... >> I'll take an ASR33 over VT05, anytime, at least I can spill my tea >> into the kybd with impunity. > > Well, everyone has their own criteria for choosing equipment. Tea spill > survivability was never at the top of my check off list, but then again, in > over 30 years of using things with keyboards I've never* spilled anything in > one. Not even when reading posts in this newsgroup? Even a cough or a sneeze qualifies as keyboard gumming. ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: <79d390dcerk1mjaq7td642q5tkf8i9v9pe@4ax.com> References: <1196.615T1972T8795473@kltpzyxm.invalid> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 16 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 02:09:39 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1083290979 24.71.223.147 (Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:09:39 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 20:09:39 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172935 On 29 Apr 04 14:39:39 -0800 in alt.folklore.computers, "Charlie Gibbs" wrote: >Some applications used >the terminal's screen buffer as intermediate storage, which made >it easier to keep track of each user's state when handling multiple >terminals. Another block mode terminal parallel with HTML: invisible/hidden fields. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 21:29:00 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:32:26 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <8NidnbGIzPJxJAzd4p2dnA@comcast.com> Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-3sgUicexRZ1gOOJBJyMB0wqLdp0HxLGLE4ZJai8Yyxu0SclHHM9m973IoDpSBFKGYbbCnISZv3AiDtQ!WPEIHBwTdGuo6vEtDaya9SiAmEagNr8x+0ITH3b7UoFlCaxr/VPrvYWnxcI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172936 "Heinz W. Wiggeshoff" wrote in message news:c6s7ql$ko9$1@freenet9.carleton.ca... > "Bill Leary" (Bill_Leary@msn.com) writes: > > Well, everyone has their own criteria for choosing equipment. Tea spill > > survivability was never at the top of my check off list, but then again, in > > over 30 years of using things with keyboards I've never* spilled anything in > > one. > > Not even when reading posts in this newsgroup? Even a cough or a sneeze > qualifies as keyboard gumming. Not even. I have a habit of keeping the keyboard and screen quite a distance from the edge of the desk. Most people consider my typical desk setup odd. And they're correct. It is rather odd. Works for me, but it is odd. - Bill ###### From: Té Rowan Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:33:09 +0000 Organization: Word used by Space Aliens Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp163-207.as.mi.is Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.simnet.is 1083295991 1567 217.151.163.207 (30 Apr 2004 03:33:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@simnet.is NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 03:33:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newspeer.radix.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!news.simnet.is!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172939 Saith TCS: >glass-tty and dumb terminal are the same AFAIK and the key difference between >a dumb and a smart terminal is the presence of a microprocessor versus >doing everything in hardware (a big board of MSI logic). Based on this thread and The File, the difference between the three lies in capabilities rather than guts. LSI lego is surely cheaper than MSI for the same functionality, now. Glass TTY: Can show text on screen. Dumb terminal: Can also do basic cursor movement. Smart terminal: Can do things (say, line or field editing) on its own without involving the big iron. May be programmable. That's about as condensed as it can be without cutting my own throat. -- Té Rowan (reynirhs@mi.is) ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 04 12:24:09 GMT Lines: 27 Message-ID: <409262e5$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=j:]GZTfKJ0Q6S0io2g2UX]0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZVEg:I@RFFWQoaC=PXFli=SKPPN3e_mGS\>C5OJ=2C6QY X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172969 In article , Pete Verdon wrote: >Michael Black wrote: >>> ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) wrote: >>> (to BAH of all people!) > >>>>Its not me but you who should change attitude and behaviour since >>>>this is a open group > >> Do you think this guy is "Airy Bean" who stumbled in here some months >> back, but now under a different name? > >No, I think he's a genuine person with a genuine query, but who has >unfortunately (and I really do mean unfortunately) failed to learn any >manners in an online context. Probably a result of too much time spent in >Web forums and lesser newsgroups where this sort of behaviour is the norm. > >A less-than-perfect grasp of English doesn't help, though that's hardly his >fault. Except it's all a puton. He submitted a post to a science group I read and he put two spaces after a period. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 04 12:27:34 GMT Lines: 19 Message-ID: <409263b1$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=KSC5OJ=2C6QY X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172970 In article <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com>, mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) wrote: >In article , >mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >> >>In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>> A shear stupidity!!!! >> >>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do >>it correctly. > >I think he intended it as a cutting remark. OH, NEAT! PUN FIGHT. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 04 12:29:00 GMT Lines: 23 Message-ID: <40926408$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=KSC5OJ=2C6Q9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172971 In article , Bernd Felsche wrote: >mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: > >>In article , >>mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >>> >>>In article , ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>>> A shear stupidity!!!! >>> >>>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do >>>it correctly. > >>I think he intended it as a cutting remark. > >Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. He has a rasp in his toolkit? /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 04 12:34:14 GMT Lines: 34 Message-ID: <40926542$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=VNnfD>2MnYna5b__i:71lg0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jVEg:I@RFFWaoaC=PXFli=cKPPN3e_mGSl>C5OJ=2C6Qi X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!newspeer1.nwr.nac.net!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172973 In article , "Bill Leary" wrote: > wrote in message >news:408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> >started getting addressable cursors. The terminals which could not >> address the cursor started being called "dumb." >> >> IIRC, not even then. > >Your experience, it seems, was somewhat different from mine. What's your >geographic area? Maynard, then Marlboro, all DEC. > .. I'm in the Rte. 128/495 Mass. area. Computervision, some >small outfits using DG equipment, etc. > >> The VT05 was kind of a cursor addresser (every >> time somebody tried to write code to use the display, >> lots of cursing was done) > >Well, that too... > >> Could "dumb" be when the program had to do the cursor movements >> by hand? > >A distinct possibility. IIRC, when CDO did the VT05 in SYSDPY, he kept mumbling about having to go back to home to do the simpliest damn thing. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408fa3e9$0$28931$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 04 12:36:53 GMT Lines: 41 Message-ID: <409265e1$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=eC5OJ=2C6QY X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!colt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172975 In article , TCS wrote: >On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 15:44:06 +0000, Té Rowan wrote: >>Saith BAH: > >>>Could "dumb" be when the program had to do the cursor movements >>>by hand? > >>I looked up in the Jargon File (4.4.7) >>to see what it said: > >>glass tty: /glas T·T·Y/, /glas ti´tee/, n. >>[obs.] A terminal that has a display screen but which, because of >>hardware or software limitations, behaves like a teletype or some >>other printing terminal, thereby combining the disadvantages of both: > > >>dumb terminal: n. >>A terminal that is one step above a [glass tty], having a minimally >>addressable cursor but no on-screen editing or other features normally > > >>smart terminal: n. >>1. A terminal that has enough computing capability to render graphics >>or to offload some kind of front-end processing from the computer it >>talks to. The development of workstations and personal computers has >>made this term and the product it describes semi-obsolescent, but one > >glass-tty and dumb terminal are the same AFAIK and the key difference between >a dumb and a smart terminal is the presence of a microprocessor versus >doing everything in hardware (a big board of MSI logic). No matter what we think, it appears that the meaning of "dumb terminal" is a moving target. It describes last year's technology. So it is a marketing term. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 04 12:46:46 GMT Lines: 57 Message-ID: <40926831$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=GaN\Q?:OJfigAYX5i\dYfj0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jVEg:I@RFFWaoaC=PXFli=cKPPN3e_mGSl>C5OJ=2C6Qi X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.utanet.at!news.cambrium.nl!news.cambrium.nl!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172978 In article <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com>, David Powell wrote: >In article <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com>, > Brian Inglis in >alt.folklore.computers wrote: > >>On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 14:09:42 -0400 in alt.folklore.computers, "Bill >>Leary" wrote: >> >>>"Brian Inglis" wrote in message >>>news:iepv801got3u4djhjs2i1qh96cevdd3jve@4ax.com... >>>> ISTR the desktop Silent 700s being termed intelligent. >>>> ((..details omitted..)) >>> >>>Ah, so there's another take on it. >>> >>>I distinctly recall the VT100 being called "intelligent," but I don't >>>remember WHO called it that. That is, I don't remember if it was marketing >>>materials or such, but I do know that we programmers who had to make them >>>work with the products called them such and when we spec'd terminal >>>requirements we specified that the terminal attached to the product required >>>a minimum level of intelligence (and used that word) and then went on to >>>specify what command sequences it had to respond to. This was in the late >>>'80's. >> >>Late 1970s, early 1980s, it was only intelligent if it supported some >>kind of local processing or language, like the TI S700, DEC VT103, >>VT125, and ReGIS graphics terminals VK100 GIGI, VT240ff. >> > >DEC used the term "Intelligent terminal" to describe the PDT-11/xxx >series, essentially a VT100 with a LSI-11 inside, and either inboard >TU58s (yuck!) or outboard floppies. Late 70s. VT125 was described as >a "smart" terminal. > >Can't resist quoting DEC's marketing blurb for the VT05. >"Timesharing systems are pioneering a new way of life in many >scientific and technical disciplines. The time spent by professional >workers at the terminal in dialog with a computer is critical >productive time. The obviously strong need for terminal equipment >that increases this productivity is satisfied by the VT05 Alphanumeric >Display Terminal. It is designed to make the professional's "on-line" >time totally useful." > >I'll take an ASR33 over VT05, anytime, at least I can spill my tea >into the kybd with impunity. Believe me, I yelled at the designer for not letting us Tape Prep types be a guinea pig. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 04 12:47:31 GMT Lines: 25 Message-ID: <4092685f$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=^STM4TYoi>C5OJ=2C6Q9 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172979 In article , "Bill Leary" wrote: >"David Powell" wrote in message >news:42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com... >> I'll take an ASR33 over VT05, anytime, at least I can spill my tea >> into the kybd with impunity. > >Well, everyone has their own criteria for choosing equipment. Tea spill >survivability was never at the top of my check off list, but then again, in >over 30 years of using things with keyboards I've never* spilled anything in >one. > > - Bill >------- >* Every time I tell anyone that I figure I've just tempted the Mist Demons. Nope. Murphy. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 04 12:52:58 GMT Lines: 30 Message-ID: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=W\;cNUjbUnioB:SEihUONk0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jVEg:I@RFFWaoaC=PXFli=cKPPN3e_mGSl>C5OJ=2C6Qi X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!news.tu-darmstadt.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!elnk-atl-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:172980 In article , Pete Verdon wrote: >yogesh wrote: > >> How were the connection of the keyboard (and in case mouse)of the dumb >> terminal managed? >Yup, that's pretty much it. Weird mainframe stuff >notwithstanding, when you >pressed a key the appropriate ASCII code was sent down the wire to the >computer. Simple as that. If the computer chose, it might then send back >the same character, so that you could see on the screen what you'd just >typed. In the simplest case, that's all there is to it. Many (most?) >terminals have a "local echo" ability, allowing them to display the >characters they send so that the computer doesn't have to send them back. >If you had this turned on and the computer thought you didn't (so echoed >your keystrokes for you as well), you'd get tteexxtt lliikkee tthhiiss,, >though only one of each character would actually go to the program. And then there were the problems of "hiding" the password the user typed to login. It was nice when temporarily disabling echoing was programmable. Hard-copy TTYs had other problems to overcome. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: anoneds@netscape.net (Ben Yates) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 30 Apr 2004 11:52:54 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 12 Message-ID: <8c160850.0404301052.44155b1a@posting.google.com> References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.212.234.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083351174 7668 127.0.0.1 (30 Apr 2004 18:52:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:52:54 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173009 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... > And then there were the problems of "hiding" the password the user > typed to login. It was nice when temporarily disabling > echoing was programmable. Hard-copy TTYs had other problems > to overcome. > The old DecWriter hardcopy terminals didn't echo when at a password prompt, so they must have been able to turn-off echo as well. I don't know about other hardcopy terminals... Ben ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:53:26 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> <4092685f$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:56:54 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.62.97.34 X-Trace: sv3-3iovs4F4JeFpBFHOMo83tBVmkw37O6dALbq/UttblWam2a51ko1c+pR4mGlkQrIYDYWaTmnK5cPpbwm!BlDjDkosb8Nc8kwu4vro+WYX8nC9Y2SXkXUr7cNAKlxq9UHiMR6vUuZ6lyw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173010 wrote in message news:4092685f$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >* Every time I tell anyone that I figure I've just tempted the Mist > Demons. > > Nope. Murphy. I made peace with Murphy years ago. I allowed as that he'd always win, he allowed as that I'd always loose, and we got along fine after that. - Bill ###### Message-ID: <4092A15F.DB57A415@yahoo.com> From: CBFalconer Reply-To: cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net Organization: Ched Research X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 23 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:58:38 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.76.136.221 X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1083351518 12.76.136.221 (Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:58:38 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 18:58:38 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173011 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > ... snip ... > > And then there were the problems of "hiding" the password the > user typed to login. It was nice when temporarily disabling > echoing was programmable. Hard-copy TTYs had other problems > to overcome. Back when things like Tymshare and GE etc. had salesmen with demonstration passwords. The TTYs output a herd of overstruck characters before having the salesman enter his password. Everything went out over a 110 baud modem. One of our people hooked up a 15 dollar tape recorder. Later he played it back into the modem, pulling the paper up at the critical moment, and presto - free services. -- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. USE worldnet address! ###### From: Patrick Scheible Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 30 Apr 2004 12:46:03 -0700 Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404301052.44155b1a@posting.google.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cache-Post-Path: yasure!unknown@cascadia.drizzle.com X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 20 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!newsrout1.ntli.net!news-in.ntli.net!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173014 anoneds@netscape.net (Ben Yates) writes: > jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... > > And then there were the problems of "hiding" the password the user > > typed to login. It was nice when temporarily disabling > > echoing was programmable. Hard-copy TTYs had other problems > > to overcome. > > > > The old DecWriter hardcopy terminals didn't echo when at a password > prompt, so they must have been able to turn-off echo as well. I don't > know about other hardcopy terminals... I remember the ASR teletypes typing a several characters on top of each other to make a blacked-out area before prompting for the password. At least I think it was the ASRs. Too long ago to say whether they had to do that or that was just the way their particular software chose to do it. -- Patrick ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:52:23 -0500 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: TCS Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404301052.44155b1a@posting.google.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:52:23 -0500 Lines: 21 NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.174.184.183 X-Trace: sv3-vsZ2vc/qFIrSTxYiej915tAs4+mYOhyPrQqv1PpivHQXOYXJvPGy0oY1fsPlJawAznnPZc4Ypm5Yb9I!n2brbkhwqteDzGmFGDi+zfSsGvIsnyitKhCVMi3jEQ+xQRHsd1GW4BZbt7WDs5pbpy+sPEk5OfAF!dOipuymvyhijwpGA5cSQKR6OaQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173015 On 30 Apr 2004 12:46:03 -0700, Patrick Scheible wrote: >anoneds@netscape.net (Ben Yates) writes: >> jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... >> > And then there were the problems of "hiding" the password the user >> > typed to login. It was nice when temporarily disabling >> > echoing was programmable. Hard-copy TTYs had other problems >> > to overcome. >> > >> >> The old DecWriter hardcopy terminals didn't echo when at a password >> prompt, so they must have been able to turn-off echo as well. I don't >> know about other hardcopy terminals... >I remember the ASR teletypes typing a several characters on top of >each other to make a blacked-out area before prompting for the >password. At least I think it was the ASRs. Too long ago to say >whether they had to do that or that was just the way their particular >software chose to do it. That was common for any printing terminal that used local echo. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Organization: me From: Morten Reistad X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: mrr@via.reistad.priv.no (Morten Reistad) Message-ID: Lines: 63 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.111.165.173 X-Complaints-To: abuse@chello.no X-Trace: amstwist00 1083358813 80.111.165.173 (Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:00:13 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:00:13 MET DST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!eusc.inter.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!amsnews04.chello.com!amstwist00.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173018 In article <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, wrote: >In article , > Pete Verdon wrote: >>yogesh wrote: >> >>> How were the connection of the keyboard (and in case mouse)of the dumb >>> terminal managed? > > >>Yup, that's pretty much it. Weird mainframe stuff >>notwithstanding, when you >>pressed a key the appropriate ASCII code was sent down the wire to the >>computer. Simple as that. If the computer chose, it might then send back Conceptually simple, yes. Terminals usually were of two main varieties. Ascii and block mode. Ascii terminals just sent and received a stream of characters; usually 7-bit ISO646 (a.k.a old-style ASCII) encoded into asynchronous bytes. Speeds were usually from 1200 to 19200 bps; depending on distance etc. The interface was RS232 a.k.a. V.24/V.28; and this interface was full of warts. It was not expecially optimal for long hauls links either because of the open-ended electrical caracteristics. The other type of terminals sent structured blocks of data back and forth; usually under control of the main computer. The actual hardware usually used shift register or special chips that did the encoding; UARTS for ascii and USRTS for block mode. The old 8250 in the PC is such a chip, likewise the SIO for a Z80, and the 6251 for the 6500/6800 series. They also needed buffer chips to drive the quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. 1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. On the other side there were usually communications controllers. IBM had a range of them; and the DEC20 used a dedicated PDP11 for this purpose. Prime had a long range of such controllers. VAXen also had lots of such controllers. By around 1982 microprocessors were normal in this end as well; and they took the character processing off the main processor. You see, UARTs and USRTs tended to want to send an interrupt every time a character was ready. or one was sent. This tended to bog down lots of machines. These interrupts were instead sent to a front end processor that dealt with this stuff; and presented a lot of bits to the main CPU all at once. >>the same character, so that you could see on the screen what you'd just >>typed. In the simplest case, that's all there is to it. Many (most?) >>terminals have a "local echo" ability, allowing them to display the >>characters they send so that the computer doesn't have to send them back. >>If you had this turned on and the computer thought you didn't (so echoed >>your keystrokes for you as well), you'd get tteexxtt lliikkee tthhiiss,, >>though only one of each character would actually go to the program. > >And then there were the problems of "hiding" the password the user >typed to login. It was nice when temporarily disabling >echoing was programmable. Hard-copy TTYs had other problems >to overcome. In a sense this interface is still around. I use it often to connect to consoles of servers. (said servers are often a long way away; and may mpt accept telnet/ssh from the internet). -- mrr ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:51:53 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:51:53 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-cxs6szVG7bnB1XpZpBnOMI+zx9w7ALsk8XUOJCGIzmTlRWEye6wAXT1YMtC3jpo2+zMHQpp/t/UwIBv!acEB5mYbTk23EclRxQP3ENS2VT5l5FpUHmTYZ7vzs7I55mmslA3gR/MFX/UaasXc0Fu8a2KYXz6E!LuI= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173021 "Morten Reistad" wrote in message news:gcdu6c.ek31.ln@via.reistad.priv.no... > They also needed buffer chips to drive the > quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that > one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. > 1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. > The 1488/1489 were actually robust, and could stand a direct short to ground. What usually blew them was an inductive spike picked up by long cables far out of spec and little or no shielding, or a ground loop between buildings/floors. I also discovered that a near miss by lightning (it was about 10 meters) was enough to fry them even if they were turned off and the cable was less than a meter long. Jack Peacock ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:57:09 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404301052.44155b1a@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 14:57:09 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <0badnTw4Qo0rVg_dRVn-vw@mpowercom.net> Lines: 16 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-n50Sh9bBQu8g9DK2iM4+umcMvL3BCsIUsuztkcQB/OGf0sdcoAwg/T56pljvfxjg6u6YOtfYii1DtJJ!pmm/r0zsGarX7tmniUYctuoozUGJ87cCRyhBqH/H0lHxRTyxjQ7CFegyNLadrybTFgbe2hIicqKa!RJM= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173023 "Ben Yates" wrote in message news:8c160850.0404301052.44155b1a@posting.google.com... > The old DecWriter hardcopy terminals didn't echo when at a password > prompt, so they must have been able to turn-off echo as well. I don't > know about other hardcopy terminals... > That's more a function of the OS than the terminal. Unless running half duplex all that was needed was to turn off echo during password entry. VMS has extensive support for this. I vaguely recall RSX had something for it as well. It wasn't needed for RSTS because most users would tape the password to the terminal, write it on the wall in large block letters (if they could spell), or just yell it out across the room if it was a secure environment... Jack Peacock ###### From: arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 17:38:49 -0500 Organization: Not Really! Lines: 18 Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tcr4.dynip.ripco.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: e250.ripco.com 1083364747 24256 209.100.226.4 (30 Apr 2004 22:39:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ripco.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:39:07 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!gail.ripco.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173027 On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad wrote: >They also needed buffer chips to drive the >quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. -- Arargh404 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address. ###### From: Pete Verdon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 00:09:29 +0100 Organization: University of Warwick, UK Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: usenet@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc2-warw5-4-0-cust78.brhm.cable.ntl.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk 1083366569 3550 81.109.84.78 (30 Apr 2004 23:09:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@csv.warwick.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 23:09:29 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 X-No-Archive: Yes Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!feed1.jnfs.ja.net!feed2.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!warwick!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173028 Morten Reistad wrote: > In a sense this interface is still around. I use it often to > connect to consoles of servers. I have an Amstrad NC200, sort of an early PDA but laptop-sized and with a nice keyboard. Although not available from the graphical menu, it does have a terminal mode, and this is what I use it for. It used to sit on my desk, tucked under the CRT monitor with the screen and keyboard showing in front, and connected to my desktop machine. It was often handy to have another command line instantly available like that; often I used it to adjust the music playing without messing up whatever tasks I was up to on the main display. With my new LCD monitor it doesn't fit neatly on the desk, so it's now used exclusively as a terminal to the wooden box with the guts of a PC inside that serves as our home router. Well, except the time I used its built-in BBC Basic interpreter to write a data-capture program to record people's details as they joined the Real Ale Society at the Freshers' Fair. Pete ###### From: Pete Fenelon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 00:13:32 +0100 Organization: Utility Muffin Research Kitchen Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.com (81.152.17.202) X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083367025 17352561 I 81.152.17.202 ([203095]) X-Orig-Path: not-for-mail User-Agent: tin/1.7.4-20040225 ("Benbecula") (UNIX) (Linux/2.4.19 (i686)) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!host81-152-17-202.range81-152.btcentralplus.COM!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173029 arargh404NOSPAM@now.at.arargh.com wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad > wrote: > > >>They also needed buffer chips to drive the >>quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >>one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >>1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. > > That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a > current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is > needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. > Shudder, I haven't thought about 20mA current-loop for a *long* time. pete -- pete@fenelon.com "there's no room for enigmas in built-up areas" ###### From: "Michael N. LeVine" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:23:49 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.2 (PPC Mac OS X) X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 22 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!mlevinespmfltr Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173031 In article , arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad > wrote: > > > >They also needed buffer chips to drive the > >quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that > >one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. > >1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. > > That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a > current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is > needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? -- Michael LeVine - mlevine@redshift.com "Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. All the rest have thirty one except for Gypsy Rose Lee and every one knew what she had" - Mel Blanc ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 30 Apr 04 15:52:04 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 29 Message-ID: <1288.616T203T9523048@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-684.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news2 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173030 In article firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0 (Morten Reistad) writes: >Conceptually simple, yes. Terminals usually were of two main varieties. >Ascii and block mode. Just a minor nit here. We really shouldn't use the term "ASCII" to describe a terminal that doesn't operate in block mode. ASCII and block mode are orthogonal concepts, and indeed Sperry->Unisys block-mode terminals used ASCII (as well as RS-232 connections). We can't even use the term "asynchronous" - sitting in my basement is a Uniscope 100 with an async card in it. It still uses the same block-mode polled Uniscope protocol as its synchronous brethren, but characters have no start or stop bits, and I was able to drive the display off an async port; it was the first tube I hooked up to my IMSAI. So what would be a good term anyway? If one exists, I can't think of it right now - but we need some unambiguous way to refer to asynchronous character-mode terminals. Hmmm... "character-mode"... maybe that's it. Comments, anyone? -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:07:58 -0500 Organization: Not Really! Lines: 35 Message-ID: <6dq5901bqtml8m7bsdqp8j5h8dc4luobl3@4ax.com> References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tcr4.dynip.ripco.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: e250.ripco.com 1083370098 3719 209.100.226.4 (1 May 2004 00:08:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ripco.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 00:08:18 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!gail.ripco.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173032 On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:23:49 -0700, "Michael N. LeVine" wrote: >In article , > arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad >> wrote: >> >> >> >They also needed buffer chips to drive the >> >quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >> >one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >> >1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. >> >> That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a >> current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is >> needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. > >Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? No. Maybe I should have included a ':-)'. I know that the rs232 spec is for voltage or else why would it have voltage thresholds for detection? If there is a current version, I have never seen it. -- Arargh404 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <408bb61a$0$28911$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <408cff2b$0$28906$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> <40926408$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: Bernd Felsche User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 10:14:58 +0800 Message-ID: <2qdbm1xsp2.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> Lines: 28 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.144.24 X-Trace: 1083377628 freenews.iinet.net.au 16583 203.59.144.24 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!HSNX.atgi.net!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!freenews.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173038 jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: >In article , > Bernd Felsche wrote: >>mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: >> >>>In article , >>>mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >>>> >>>>In article , >ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>>>> A shear stupidity!!!! >>>> >>>>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, do try to do >>>>it correctly. >> >>>I think he intended it as a cutting remark. >> >>Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. >He has a rasp in his toolkit? More like a bastard amongst his files. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:32:23 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:32:22 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 35 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-ThVOR2otBPzqzQvt3A9AIEPmUQtP1K7cit3qDoI8GT8vUKw3EjxfmedB7VKzSiHkz+KS1wFaZwVY+3t!xY8eNq6YEvZ9McTgWSET6Hrv/ndvstDitgov5WDnxMvD3ZlvcG+1FV31eHoaCkHZmrBnPbl4PFmV!tIw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173041 wrote in message news:g3l5909d0baqcg1eqhst9v6tng89mcr6t6@4ax.com... > That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a > current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is > needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. > Space and mark were set by voltage polarity, which was *usually* +/-12 volt but occasionally was higher. The spec allowed voltage over 12vdc, which caused problems when terminals switched to RS-423 (single-ended version of RS-422 differential driver, ground one end and it usually worked). DEC terminals were among the worst, locking up if the RS-232 was around 15 volts. Higher voltage caused lots of problems, limiting speed due to slew rate (time to change state from space to mark or vice versa). The higher the voltage, the larger the swing. The faster the slew the shorter the cable, which is why you couldn't run 115kb over 3000 feet of unshielded copper. That's why most vendors stuck to 12 volts; good noise immunity (well, for the times) and usually good for at least 9600 baud over longer distance. The problem with voltage was ground loops. Two floors of a building may have a substantial potential between grounds. So if the ground loop was 7 volts, the +12 might actually be +19 at the far end, and the -12 might be -5. That's one reason fiber is used for long distances, no ground loop with glass. I know of one casino that had a ground potential of 50vdc between two sections of the building. To coordinate the outside lighting we had to opto isolate the serial line between two logic panels. One could be electrocuted if hands were placed the wrong way on the catwalk above the signage. (Yes, way out of code, but the owner was a major VIP in the city, bldg. inspectors approved the electrical sight unseen.) Jack Peacock ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <6dq5901bqtml8m7bsdqp8j5h8dc4luobl3@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 40 Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 03:04:24 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1083380664 24.71.223.147 (Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:04:24 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 21:04:24 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173044 On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:07:58 -0500 in alt.folklore.computers, arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: >On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 16:23:49 -0700, "Michael N. LeVine" > wrote: > >>In article , >> arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >They also needed buffer chips to drive the >>> >quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >>> >one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >>> >1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. >>> >>> That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a >>> current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is >>> needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. >> >>Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? > >No. Maybe I should have included a ':-)'. > >I know that the rs232 spec is for voltage or else why would it have >voltage thresholds for detection? > >If there is a current version, I have never seen it. IIRC it specifies supplying 5-25V into a load impedance of 3-7Kohms, with a minimum receiver voltage of 3V, so there is an implied current requirement. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### From: arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:06:22 -0500 Organization: Not Really! Lines: 56 Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tcr4.dynip.ripco.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: e250.ripco.com 1083380806 24176 209.100.226.4 (1 May 2004 03:06:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ripco.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 03:06:46 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!gail.ripco.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173045 On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 19:32:22 -0700, "Jack Peacock" wrote: > wrote in message >news:g3l5909d0baqcg1eqhst9v6tng89mcr6t6@4ax.com... >> That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a >> current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is >> needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. >> >Space and mark were set by voltage polarity, which was *usually* +/-12 volt >but occasionally was higher. The spec allowed voltage over 12vdc, which >caused problems when terminals switched to RS-423 (single-ended version of >RS-422 differential driver, ground one end and it usually worked). DEC >terminals were among the worst, locking up if the RS-232 was around 15 >volts. I thought rs232b was +- 5v 25v and the C version changed that. I don't know, because I have never found a copy of the actual spec. Never got to 422 or 423. > >Higher voltage caused lots of problems, limiting speed due to slew rate >(time to change state from space to mark or vice versa). The higher the >voltage, the larger the swing. The faster the slew the shorter the cable, >which is why you couldn't run 115kb over 3000 feet of unshielded copper. >That's why most vendors stuck to 12 volts; good noise immunity (well, for >the times) and usually good for at least 9600 baud over longer distance. > >The problem with voltage was ground loops. Two floors of a building may >have a substantial potential between grounds. So if the ground loop was 7 >volts, the +12 might actually be +19 at the far end, and the -12 might >be -5. That's one reason fiber is used for long distances, no ground loop >with glass. Been there, done that. Same floor, 300 feet away. Different power distribution. Had to use line drivers. Also fun, ground to neutral voltage problems. I heard of a case with >5v ac. The tech got tired of replacing power supplies, and finally said to hell with it and tied ground to neutral. He should have use an isolation transformer, but the customer wouldn't spring for it. This was in the top of an old building, quite some years back. > >I know of one casino that had a ground potential of 50vdc between two >sections of the building. To coordinate the outside lighting we had to opto >isolate the serial line between two logic panels. One could be electrocuted >if hands were placed the wrong way on the catwalk above the signage. (Yes, >way out of code, but the owner was a major VIP in the city, bldg. inspectors >approved the electrical sight unseen.) I would have welded some heavy buss bars across the offending sections. In secret, of course. -- Arargh404 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address. ###### From: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 1 May 2004 04:25:16 GMT Organization: The National Capital FreeNet Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <4092A15F.DB57A415@yahoo.com> Reply-To: ab528@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) NNTP-Posting-Host: smeagol.ncf.ca X-Trace: freenet9.carleton.ca 1083385516 17078 134.117.136.48 (1 May 2004 04:25:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: complaints@ncf.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 1 May 2004 04:25:16 GMT X-Given-Sender: ab528@smeagol.ncf.ca (Heinz W. Wiggeshoff) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!feed.news.schlund.de!schlund.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!news.uni-ulm.de!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!uninett.no!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp1.phx1.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!nntp.gblx.net!xcski.com!freenet-news!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!ab528 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173049 CBFalconer (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) writes: > ... > One of our people hooked up a 15 dollar tape recorder. Later he > played it back into the modem, pulling the paper up at the > critical moment, and presto - free services. > Lemme guess - this guy never paid a long distance phone bill either. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Organization: me From: Morten Reistad X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: mrr@via.reistad.priv.no (Morten Reistad) Message-ID: Lines: 43 Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 07:52:51 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.111.165.173 X-Complaints-To: abuse@chello.no X-Trace: amstwist00 1083391213 80.111.165.173 (Sat, 01 May 2004 08:00:13 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 08:00:13 MET DST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!syros.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!amsnews01.chello.com!amsnews04.chello.com!amstwist00.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173056 In article , Jack Peacock wrote: >"Morten Reistad" wrote in message >news:gcdu6c.ek31.ln@via.reistad.priv.no... >> They also needed buffer chips to drive the >> quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >> one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >> 1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. >> >The 1488/1489 were actually robust, and could stand a direct short to >ground. What usually blew them was an inductive spike picked up by long >cables far out of spec and little or no shielding, With a realistic RS232 network you were way outside specifications anyway. 200 meter runs at 9600 baud was common. Wiring was built ad-hoc.(structured cabling arrived later.) (the spec would limit 9600 bps to something like 30 meters AFAIR). We could insert what was called "short distance modems"; but they were expesnive and needed separate power. > or a ground loop between >buildings/floors. I remember a case with a customer that had 110V AC in ground differential between two buildings. They were downtown, and built on top of rail and tube links. I don't think they ever found out the cause of the 110V differential. For a while they had it feed a lightbulb in a little corridor between the buildings. They wanted to stretch RS232 terminals across. I knew about some solutions which ran 250 volts on the RS232 signals; and used electronics in both ends. > I also discovered that a near miss by lightning (it was >about 10 meters) was enough to fry them even if they were turned off and the >cable was less than a meter long. I gave up trying to find all the causes for blown 1488/1489. I just had them on sockets and had a bag of them ready to change. -- mrr ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: Organization: me From: Morten Reistad X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001) Originator: mrr@via.reistad.priv.no (Morten Reistad) Message-ID: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> Lines: 30 Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 07:56:25 +0200 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.111.165.173 X-Complaints-To: abuse@chello.no X-Trace: amstwist00 1083391213 80.111.165.173 (Sat, 01 May 2004 08:00:13 MET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 08:00:13 MET DST Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!amsnews04.chello.com!amstwist00.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173057 In article , Michael N. LeVine wrote: >In article , > arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad >> wrote: >> >> >> >They also needed buffer chips to drive the >> >quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >> >one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >> >1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. >> >> That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a >> current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is >> needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. Which was large, especially when it was long. Feeding the cable could easily make significant inroads to the demands on the power budget on the electronics. (not the VDU). >Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? Shudder. The original teletypes used 50 mA current loop. Computers used 20 mA current loop. It was a far more robust signal; but it was hellish to configure. -- mrr ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 55 Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 07:08:36 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw1no 1083395316 24.71.223.147 (Sat, 01 May 2004 01:08:36 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 01:08:36 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw1no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173061 On Sat, 1 May 2004 07:52:51 +0200 in alt.folklore.computers, Morten Reistad wrote: >In article , >Jack Peacock wrote: >>"Morten Reistad" wrote in message >>news:gcdu6c.ek31.ln@via.reistad.priv.no... >>> They also needed buffer chips to drive the >>> quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >>> one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >>> 1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. >>> >>The 1488/1489 were actually robust, and could stand a direct short to >>ground. What usually blew them was an inductive spike picked up by long >>cables far out of spec and little or no shielding, > >With a realistic RS232 network you were way outside specifications >anyway. 200 meter runs at 9600 baud was common. Wiring was built >ad-hoc.(structured cabling arrived later.) (the spec would limit >9600 bps to something like 30 meters AFAIR). We could insert what >was called "short distance modems"; but they were expesnive and needed >separate power. > >> or a ground loop between >>buildings/floors. > >I remember a case with a customer that had 110V AC in ground differential >between two buildings. They were downtown, and built on top of rail >and tube links. I don't think they ever found out the cause of the >110V differential. For a while they had it feed a lightbulb in a little >corridor between the buildings. They wanted to stretch RS232 terminals >across. > >I knew about some solutions which ran 250 volts on the RS232 signals; >and used electronics in both ends. > >> I also discovered that a near miss by lightning (it was >>about 10 meters) was enough to fry them even if they were turned off and the >>cable was less than a meter long. > >I gave up trying to find all the causes for blown 1488/1489. I just >had them on sockets and had a bag of them ready to change. A PPOE used a Gandalf DataSwitch with limited distance datasets from each terminal to terminate all RS232 equipment in the computer room. Dial in modem pool and terminals could select a local system, dial out modem, X.25 pad, or 3270 emulator, then access whatever systems the comms interfaces connected to. Never had to worry about long RS232 runs or blown equipment. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 39 Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 07:11:07 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1083395467 24.71.223.147 (Sat, 01 May 2004 01:11:07 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 01:11:07 MDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed5.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!news3.optonline.net!pd7cy1no!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173062 On Sat, 1 May 2004 07:56:25 +0200 in alt.folklore.computers, Morten Reistad wrote: >In article , >Michael N. LeVine wrote: >>In article , >> arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >They also needed buffer chips to drive the >>> >quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >>> >one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >>> >1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. >>> >>> That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a >>> current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is >>> needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. > >Which was large, especially when it was long. Feeding the cable could >easily make significant inroads to the demands on the power budget >on the electronics. (not the VDU). > >>Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? > >Shudder. The original teletypes used 50 mA current loop. Computers >used 20 mA current loop. It was a far more robust signal; but it was >hellish to configure. Really only suitable for local loops or leased connections, unless you had a telco DAA: not much in the way of signalling, unlike RS232. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> From: Bernd Felsche User-Agent: nn/6.6.5 Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 15:47:39 +0800 Message-ID: Lines: 30 NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.59.144.24 X-Trace: 1083398442 freenews.iinet.net.au 16578 203.59.144.24 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.linkpendium.com!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!border2.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!64.42.15.2!HSNX.atgi.net!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!newsfeed.iinet.net.au!freenews.iinet.net.au!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173066 Morten Reistad writes: >In article , >Jack Peacock wrote: >>"Morten Reistad" wrote in message >>news:gcdu6c.ek31.ln@via.reistad.priv.no... >>> They also needed buffer chips to drive the >>> quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >>> one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >>> 1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. >>The 1488/1489 were actually robust, and could stand a direct short >>to ground. What usually blew them was an inductive spike picked >>up by long cables far out of spec and little or no shielding, >With a realistic RS232 network you were way outside specifications >anyway. 200 meter runs at 9600 baud was common. Wiring was built >ad-hoc.(structured cabling arrived later.) (the spec would limit >9600 bps to something like 30 meters AFAIR). We could insert what >was called "short distance modems"; but they were expesnive and needed >separate power. Didn't stop us using it over hundreds of metres of unshielded telephone cable; at speeds of 9600 with no errors; and the unspec'd 19k2. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread! ###### From: arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 04:25:30 -0500 Organization: Not Really! Lines: 26 Message-ID: <4nq6909vfn23n3gqqscriv76fn41nb460s@4ax.com> References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tcr4.dynip.ripco.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: e250.ripco.com 1083403554 24241 209.100.226.4 (1 May 2004 09:25:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ripco.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 09:25:54 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!gail.ripco.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173070 On Sat, 01 May 2004 15:47:39 +0800, Bernd Felsche wrote: > >Didn't stop us using it over hundreds of metres of unshielded >telephone cable; at speeds of 9600 with no errors; and the unspec'd >19k2. Yes, I went thru that pain, once upon a time. DEC vt320's talking to DEC Lat Terminal servers and assorted terminals talking to a mini. If you didn't get the correct signal on the correct pair, it just wouldn't work. The simple cable setup had RD & TD on a pair and SG & FG on the other pair, which didn't work at all. I wound up making 4 different kinds of patch cords to get the pairing correct, and so all the signals on the telco wires were setup the same. Plus, I had to spend $$ to get that special crimp tool for those idiot MMJ connectors for the DEC equipment. -- Arargh404 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <4nq6909vfn23n3gqqscriv76fn41nb460s@4ax.com> From: floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) Organization: __________ Message-ID: <87r7u4h3ti.fld@barrow.com> User-Agent: gnus 5.10.6/XEmacs 21.4.15/Linux 2.6.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:4Ry8fZNHejBGu1ZgV72QH7I5Kps= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 01:52:41 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.124.156.135 X-Trace: eagle.america.net 1083405227 209.124.156.135 (Sat, 01 May 2004 05:53:47 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 05:53:47 EDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!news.osn.de!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!hydra.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!69.60.161.2!falcon.america.net!eagle.america.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173071 arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: >On Sat, 01 May 2004 15:47:39 +0800, Bernd Felsche > wrote: > > >> >>Didn't stop us using it over hundreds of metres of unshielded >>telephone cable; at speeds of 9600 with no errors; and the unspec'd >>19k2. One of the problems I saw was that people who managed to do that kind of thing with RS-232 later tried the same hit or miss techniques with 10baseT ethernet cabling. People who had no real idea what ethernet was doing... so they spliced (not even pretty splicing either!) cat5 cables, didn't worry about kinks, knots, sharp bends etc., and their idea of testing was to see if the network appeared on the PC they hooked up that way. Then there would be months of complaints about slowness, aborted file transfers, etc. etc. and nobody would realize that the horrible cabling was causing errors on 90% of all packets. With RS-232 if it wasn't working, it would be rather obvious! >Yes, I went thru that pain, once upon a time. DEC vt320's talking to >DEC Lat Terminal servers and assorted terminals talking to a mini. > >If you didn't get the correct signal on the correct pair, it just >wouldn't work. The simple cable setup had RD & TD on a pair and SG & >FG on the other pair, which didn't work at all. Putting RS-232 single ended Rd and Td signals on the same /balanced pair/ is almost guaranteed to fail, due to crosstalk between the two wires. Of course, matching either of them with Signal Ground is almost as bad (unless it is also very well connected to a good earth ground at both ends). The best way was actually to short a pair together at both ends, tip to ring, and use that for Rd. The same for another pair to use for Td. The rest can be done that way, or perhaps not, as they are less critical. >I wound up making 4 different kinds of patch cords to get the pairing >correct, and so all the signals on the telco wires were setup the >same. > >Plus, I had to spend $$ to get that special crimp tool for those idiot >MMJ connectors for the DEC equipment. -- Floyd L. Davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com ###### From: "Gary A. Gorgen" Organization: Tunxis Design Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <4092A15F.DB57A415@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <4092A15F.DB57A415@yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 34 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.126.247 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s04 1083412147 24.7.126.247 (Sat, 01 May 2004 11:49:07 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 11:49:07 GMT Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 11:49:07 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!peernews-us.colt.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s04.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173075 CBFalconer wrote: > jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > > ... snip ... > >>And then there were the problems of "hiding" the password the >>user typed to login. It was nice when temporarily disabling >>echoing was programmable. Hard-copy TTYs had other problems >>to overcome. > > > Back when things like Tymshare and GE etc. had salesmen with > demonstration passwords. The TTYs output a herd of overstruck > characters before having the salesman enter his password. > Everything went out over a 110 baud modem. > The GE timesharing system was half duplex. IIRC Tymshare was full duplex. > One of our people hooked up a 15 dollar tape recorder. Later he > played it back into the modem, pulling the paper up at the > critical moment, and presto - free services. > Thats why passwords were changed often. :-) -- Gary A. Gorgen | "From ideas to PRODUCTS" tunxis@comcast.net | Tunxis Design Inc. | Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ###### From: "Gary A. Gorgen" Organization: Tunxis Design Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <1288.616T203T9523048@kltpzyxm.invalid> In-Reply-To: <1288.616T203T9523048@kltpzyxm.invalid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 36 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.126.247 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s02 1083413279 24.7.126.247 (Sat, 01 May 2004 12:07:59 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 12:07:59 GMT Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 12:07:59 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.ipv6.iphh.net!iphh.net!news.osn.de!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s02.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173076 Charlie Gibbs wrote: > In article > firstname@lastname.pr1v.n0 (Morten Reistad) writes: > > >>Conceptually simple, yes. Terminals usually were of two main varieties. >>Ascii and block mode. > > > Just a minor nit here. We really shouldn't use the term "ASCII" > to describe a terminal that doesn't operate in block mode. ASCII > and block mode are orthogonal concepts, and indeed Sperry->Unisys > block-mode terminals used ASCII (as well as RS-232 connections). > > We can't even use the term "asynchronous" - sitting in my basement > is a Uniscope 100 with an async card in it. It still uses the same > block-mode polled Uniscope protocol as its synchronous brethren, > but characters have no start or stop bits, and I was able to drive > the display off an async port; it was the first tube I hooked up > to my IMSAI. > > So what would be a good term anyway? If one exists, I can't > think of it right now - but we need some unambiguous way to > refer to asynchronous character-mode terminals. Hmmm... > "character-mode"... maybe that's it. Comments, anyone? > Just to add to this, "isochronous" terminals should be included. -- Gary A. Gorgen | "From ideas to PRODUCTS" tunxis@comcast.net | Tunxis Design Inc. | Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ###### From: "Gary A. Gorgen" Organization: Tunxis Design Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> In-Reply-To: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 49 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.126.247 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s01 1083413661 24.7.126.247 (Sat, 01 May 2004 12:14:21 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 12:14:21 GMT Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 12:14:21 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!wn52feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s01.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173078 Morten Reistad wrote: > In article , > Michael N. LeVine wrote: > >>In article , >>arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: >> >> >>>On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>They also needed buffer chips to drive the >>>>quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that >>>>one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. >>>>1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. >>> >>>That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a >>>current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is >>>needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. > > > Which was large, especially when it was long. Feeding the cable could > easily make significant inroads to the demands on the power budget > on the electronics. (not the VDU). > > >>Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? > > > Shudder. The original teletypes used 50 mA current loop. Computers > used 20 mA current loop. It was a far more robust signal; but it was > hellish to configure. > Model 33 Teletypes, had spade connectors to select between 20 & 50 mA. ( I thought it was 20 & 60 mA. ) There was a little circuit board that you stuck in, that converted 20 mA to RS232. I don't think there was any hardware flow control. -- Gary A. Gorgen | "From ideas to PRODUCTS" tunxis@comcast.net | Tunxis Design Inc. | Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> From: floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) Organization: __________ Message-ID: <87n04sgpku.fld@barrow.com> User-Agent: gnus 5.10.6/XEmacs 21.4.15/Linux 2.6.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:7n4sxJ+JYy48hURs1vxA4oBuddM= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 07:00:17 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.124.156.135 X-Trace: eagle.america.net 1083423679 209.124.156.135 (Sat, 01 May 2004 11:01:19 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 11:01:19 EDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!falcon.america.net!eagle.america.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173105 "Gary A. Gorgen" wrote: >>>Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? >> Shudder. The original teletypes used 50 mA current >> loop. Computers >> used 20 mA current loop. It was a far more robust signal; but it was >> hellish to configure. >> > >Model 33 Teletypes, had spade connectors to select between 20 & 50 mA. >( I thought it was 20 & 60 mA. ) 60 mA neutral loop, or 20 mA polar loop. >There was a little circuit board that you stuck in, that converted >20 mA to RS232. >I don't think there was any hardware flow control. True. -- Floyd L. Davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com ###### From: "Gary A. Gorgen" Organization: Tunxis Design Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> <87n04sgpku.fld@barrow.com> In-Reply-To: <87n04sgpku.fld@barrow.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 40 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.126.247 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s03 1083424437 24.7.126.247 (Sat, 01 May 2004 15:13:57 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 15:13:57 GMT Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 15:13:57 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.ipv6.iphh.net!iphh.net!news0.de.colt.net!colt.net!peernews-us.colt.net!newsfeed.news2me.com!wn51feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s03.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173107 Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > "Gary A. Gorgen" wrote: > >>>>Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? >>> >>>Shudder. The original teletypes used 50 mA current >>>loop. Computers >>>used 20 mA current loop. It was a far more robust signal; but it was >>>hellish to configure. >>> >> >>Model 33 Teletypes, had spade connectors to select between 20 & 50 mA. >>( I thought it was 20 & 60 mA. ) > > > 60 mA neutral loop, or 20 mA polar loop. > What's the difference, between the two? I've only delt with 20 mA loop. > >>There was a little circuit board that you stuck in, that converted >>20 mA to RS232. >>I don't think there was any hardware flow control. > > > True. > > -- > Floyd L. Davidson > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com -- Gary A. Gorgen | "From ideas to PRODUCTS" tunxis@comcast.net | Tunxis Design Inc. | Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ###### From: arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 11:20:20 -0500 Organization: Not Really! Lines: 63 Message-ID: <51j790hel9rod7k3f8ei0p6lb6t1nde5o6@4ax.com> References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <4nq6909vfn23n3gqqscriv76fn41nb460s@4ax.com> <87r7u4h3ti.fld@barrow.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tcr74.dynip.ripco.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: e250.ripco.com 1083428451 22681 209.100.226.74 (1 May 2004 16:20:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ripco.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 16:20:51 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.92/32.572 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!enews.sgi.com!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!gail.ripco.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173113 On Sat, 01 May 2004 01:52:41 -0800, floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: >arargh404NOSPAM@NOW.AT.arargh.com wrote: >>On Sat, 01 May 2004 15:47:39 +0800, Bernd Felsche >> wrote: >> >> >>> >>>Didn't stop us using it over hundreds of metres of unshielded >>>telephone cable; at speeds of 9600 with no errors; and the unspec'd >>>19k2. > >One of the problems I saw was that people who managed to do that >kind of thing with RS-232 later tried the same hit or miss >techniques with 10baseT ethernet cabling. People who had no >real idea what ethernet was doing... so they spliced (not even >pretty splicing either!) cat5 cables, didn't worry about kinks, >knots, sharp bends etc., and their idea of testing was to see if >the network appeared on the PC they hooked up that way. Then >there would be months of complaints about slowness, aborted file >transfers, etc. etc. and nobody would realize that the horrible >cabling was causing errors on 90% of all packets. Been thru that, too. But on a newly wired building. On a 6 meter run. I always thought it was because a lot of cat5 cable was tye wrapped together, and stuffed thru a pipe. Never could prove it. > >With RS-232 if it wasn't working, it would be rather obvious! > >>Yes, I went thru that pain, once upon a time. DEC vt320's talking to >>DEC Lat Terminal servers and assorted terminals talking to a mini. >> >>If you didn't get the correct signal on the correct pair, it just >>wouldn't work. The simple cable setup had RD & TD on a pair and SG & >>FG on the other pair, which didn't work at all. > >Putting RS-232 single ended Rd and Td signals on the same >/balanced pair/ is almost guaranteed to fail, due to crosstalk >between the two wires. Of course, matching either of them with >Signal Ground is almost as bad (unless it is also very well >connected to a good earth ground at both ends). > >The best way was actually to short a pair together at both ends, >tip to ring, and use that for Rd. The same for another pair to >use for Td. The rest can be done that way, or perhaps not, as >they are less critical. I only had 2 pair to work with. I had RD & TD each paired with SG, which seemed to work ok out to about 50 meters or so. However, the area covered had a common power distribution, so I didn't have ground to ground voltage problems. The one long run, had a short haul modem. > >>I wound up making 4 different kinds of patch cords to get the pairing >>correct, and so all the signals on the telco wires were setup the >>same. >> >>Plus, I had to spend $$ to get that special crimp tool for those idiot >>MMJ connectors for the DEC equipment. -- Arargh404 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address. ###### From: "David Wade" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 17:27:29 +0100 Lines: 28 Message-ID: References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.168.51.233 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083428850 17326539 I 81.168.51.233 ([40235]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!81.168.51.233!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173116 wrote in message news:g3l5909d0baqcg1eqhst9v6tng89mcr6t6@4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 22:36:32 +0200, Morten Reistad > wrote: > > > >They also needed buffer chips to drive the > >quite strong currents needed on rs232. It was a regular uccurrance that > >one of these buffer chips blew, so they were usually easy to change. > >1488/1489 was a pair I changed a lot of. > > That's odd. I always thought that rs232 was a voltage spec, not a > current spec. The only current requirement should be that which is > needed to overcome any capacitance or inductance in the cable. > The load is also specified. Min 3k (I think) so that a power level is implied. > -- > Arargh404 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com > BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html > > To reply by email, remove the garbage from the reply address. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> <87n04sgpku.fld@barrow.com> From: floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) Organization: __________ Message-ID: <87ekq4gi7w.fld@barrow.com> User-Agent: gnus 5.10.6/XEmacs 21.4.15/Linux 2.6.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:moND+0ArPx0n44Mr/0sE6j6vszc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 09:39:15 -0800 NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.124.156.135 X-Trace: eagle.america.net 1083433223 209.124.156.135 (Sat, 01 May 2004 13:40:23 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 01 May 2004 13:40:23 EDT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!HSNX.atgi.net!falcon.america.net!eagle.america.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173121 "Gary A. Gorgen" wrote: >Floyd L. Davidson wrote: >> "Gary A. Gorgen" wrote: >> >>>>>Perhaps you are thinking of the 20ma loop used by the original teletypes? >>>> >>>>Shudder. The original teletypes used 50 mA current >>>>loop. Computers >>>>used 20 mA current loop. It was a far more robust signal; but it was >>>>hellish to configure. >>>> >>> >>>Model 33 Teletypes, had spade connectors to select between 20 & 50 mA. >>>( I thought it was 20 & 60 mA. ) >> 60 mA neutral loop, or 20 mA polar loop. >> > >What's the difference, between the two? >I've only delt with 20 mA loop. A 60 mil neutral loop is 60 mA mark and 0 mA space. The 20 mil polar loop is negative 20 mA mark and positive 20 mA space. Note that the comment about "computers used 20 mA current loop" as opposed to "teletypes" isn't really true. The use of polar telegraph circuits goes back to the manual telegraph days, prior to mechanical Teletype machines! The chief advantage for polar operation with Teletype machines is lower distortion using lower current over longer cable lengths. The fact that equal currents flow for mark and space means the rise and fall waveforms for mark/space and space/mark transitions are the same. With a neutral loop that is not true, and depending on line characteristics the pulses may be shortened or lengthened. By the time computers started using TTY machines as terminals, polar loops were pretty much standard for new TTY installations, though a lot of neutral loop equipment was still being installed for compatibility reasons. TWX and Telex used polar loops, most military crypto was using polar loop equipment; while the FAA and most airlines are example of existing networks that continued to install neutral loop equipment. -- Floyd L. Davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@barrow.com ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 01 May 04 10:14:43 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 40 Message-ID: <1208.617T2153T6145702@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> <40926408$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <2qdbm1xsp2.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-415.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!news.ipv6.iphh.net!iphh.net!news0.de.colt.net!eusc.inter.net!priapus.visi.com!orange.octanews.net!news.octanews.net!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!news.glorb.com!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173124 In article <2qdbm1xsp2.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: >jmfbahciv@aol.com writes: > >>In article , >>Bernd Felsche wrote: >>>mwilson@the-wire.com (Mel Wilson) writes: >>> >>>>In article , >>>>mwojcik@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik) wrote: >>>> >>>>>In article , >>>>>ypjofficial@indiatimes.com (yogesh) writes: >>>>> >>>>>> A shear stupidity!!!! >>>>> >>>>>That's "sheer". If you're going to conduct a flame war, >>>>>do try to do it correctly. >>>> >>>>I think he intended it as a cutting remark. >>> >>>Then he should avoid the abrasive manner. >> >>He has a rasp in his toolkit? Maybe just in his voice. >More like a bastard amongst his files. Father: Johnny, hand me that flat bastard over there. Johnny: Sure, pop. Hand me that round sonofabitch. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: "Charlie Gibbs" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 01 May 04 10:35:15 -0800 Organization: http://newsguy.com Lines: 26 Message-ID: <1062.617T760T6353725@kltpzyxm.invalid> References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-416.newsdawg.com X-Newsreader: THOR 2.5a (Amiga;TCP/IP) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news.alt.net!cyclone.bc.net!pln-e!spln!dex!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news1 Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173125 In article bernie@innovative.iinet.net.au (Bernd Felsche) writes: >Morten Reistad writes: > >>With a realistic RS232 network you were way outside specifications >>anyway. 200 meter runs at 9600 baud was common. Wiring was built >>ad-hoc.(structured cabling arrived later.) (the spec would limit >>9600 bps to something like 30 meters AFAIR). We could insert what >>was called "short distance modems"; but they were expesnive and needed >>separate power. > >Didn't stop us using it over hundreds of metres of unshielded >telephone cable; at speeds of 9600 with no errors; and the unspec'd >19k2. IIRC the spec said 50 feet at 9600. But we got away with running 38400 to an X terminal at the other end of the building, perhaps a 100-foot run. -- /~\ cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs) \ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way. X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855. / \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign! ###### From: Julien Oster Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 02 May 2004 06:21:12 +0200 Organization: FRODOID.ORG Lines: 15 Sender: fuzzy@killer.ninja.frodoid.org Message-ID: <87k6zvmpc7.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org> References: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> <87n04sgpku.fld@barrow.com> <87ekq4gi7w.fld@barrow.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-82-135-0-190.mnet-online.de (82.135.0.190) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083471672 18445818 I 82.135.0.190 ([5374]) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-82-135-0-190.mnet-online.DE!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173141 floyd@barrow.com (Floyd L. Davidson) writes: Hi Floyd, > The chief advantage for polar operation with Teletype machines > is lower distortion using lower current over longer cable > lengths. The fact that equal currents flow for mark and space > means the rise and fall waveforms for mark/space and space/mark > transitions are the same. With a neutral loop that is not true, > and depending on line characteristics the pulses may be shortened > or lengthened. Hmm. Isn't that the same kind of way differential SCSI still does it? Julien ###### From: Julien Oster Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 02 May 2004 06:33:45 +0200 Organization: FRODOID.ORG Lines: 16 Sender: fuzzy@killer.ninja.frodoid.org Message-ID: <87fzajmora.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org> References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <1288.616T203T9523048@kltpzyxm.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-82-135-0-190.mnet-online.de (82.135.0.190) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083472425 18445818 I 82.135.0.190 ([5374]) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-82-135-0-190.mnet-online.DE!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173142 "Charlie Gibbs" writes: Hello Charlie, > So what would be a good term anyway? If one exists, I can't > think of it right now - but we need some unambiguous way to > refer to asynchronous character-mode terminals. Hmmm... > "character-mode"... maybe that's it. Comments, anyone? No, sounds fine. "block mode" and "character mode" should do it. However, there are also "line mode" terminals... but just using those three terms does it and leaves space open for further specification of what is meant. Julien ###### From: Julien Oster Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 02 May 2004 06:56:10 +0200 Organization: FRODOID.ORG Lines: 58 Sender: fuzzy@killer.ninja.frodoid.org Message-ID: <87brl7mnpx.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org> References: <6hAkAls/KvwU089yn@the-wire.com> <40926408$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <2qdbm1xsp2.ln2@innovative.iinet.net.au> <1208.617T2153T6145702@kltpzyxm.invalid> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-82-135-0-190.mnet-online.de (82.135.0.190) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083473770 17858028 I 82.135.0.190 ([5374]) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-82-135-0-190.mnet-online.DE!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173148 "Charlie Gibbs" writes: > Father: Johnny, hand me that flat bastard over there. > > Johnny: Sure, pop. Hand me that round sonofabitch. Which reminds me of a story I heard in a company. Too bad I wasn't there (I couldn't have been, I'm 22 now, I was either too young or not even born yet), would have loved to observe that. But I'll tell it anywhere, it is confirmed to be true by several people. At that company, some years or maybe now decades ago, there was some kind of server or mainframe or whatever (don't know the brand or actual type). Well, this beast served some kind of terminals. I don't know if we are still speaking of dumb terminals or if they were actually some kind of workstation, however, they were somehow connected to that mainframe. Or server. Whatever. Anyway, those terminals or workstations were referred to as "pets". It may well be that the term came because the machines were actually PETs, meaning those Commodore Business machines, or once were... but that wasn't confirmed. Maybe it's just some kind of weird terminology. Fact is, that the employees all called them "pets". That terminology was established in the company a long time ago, and so nobody seemed to remember why they actually called the mainframe the way they called it. They called it the "bitch". Not as in "slut", but as in "mother dog"... this made perfectly sense. The "bitch" was serving the "pets" and so all rounded up. To make things more complicated, besides the "bitch" there were some other kind of master servers, all somehow networked with the "bitch". These master servers were set up long after the bitch and so were unspectacularly simply referred to as the "masters". Now, you might sense were this is leading to, but I'm telling it anyway. One day, one of the masters was updated with new software. Well, a bug or glitch in the protocol handling of the "bitch" caused the otherwise quite reliable thing to crash in the middle of a business day, which actually was a big problem for normal company operations. Well, that's why that day an employed computer engineer came running down the office screaming: "The bitch is down! The bitch is down! A master knocked it off and now it's down!" That must have been quite interesting :) I can well imagine that there might have been a customer standing by somewhere... Nowadays, the bitch and its pets are long gone. But some of the master servers were still in use when I heard the story back in 1998, including the unfaithful master which knocked the bitch off, being introduced to me as the "pimp". Julien ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <8c160850.0404301052.44155b1a@posting.google.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 02 May 04 11:01:13 GMT Lines: 28 Message-ID: <4094f28a$0$3048$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=974ScVI3=3d30JO1\W@`C`0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jVk4MPAXjZWda;EOPEcF]8dW2T5d1hh8:a X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173169 In article , Patrick Scheible wrote: >anoneds@netscape.net (Ben Yates) writes: > >> jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message news:<409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>... >> > And then there were the problems of "hiding" the password the user >> > typed to login. It was nice when temporarily disabling >> > echoing was programmable. Hard-copy TTYs had other problems >> > to overcome. >> > >> >> The old DecWriter hardcopy terminals didn't echo when at a password >> prompt, so they must have been able to turn-off echo as well. I don't >> know about other hardcopy terminals... > >I remember the ASR teletypes typing a several characters on top of >each other to make a blacked-out area before prompting for the >password. At least I think it was the ASRs. Too long ago to say >whether they had to do that or that was just the way their particular >software chose to do it. And it helped considerably that was a separate character from . /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 16:45:10 -0500 From: "Jack Peacock" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> <87n04sgpku.fld@barrow.com> <87ekq4gi7w.fld@barrow.com> <87k6zvmpc7.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 2 May 2004 14:45:09 -0700 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 24 NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.18.133.20 X-Trace: sv3-8QAfpSYxg5R27ki5gdXwmRK36Q6idgqIQ7MQYuIgs0RLE2eWs6FJN/Kj3SP3G1ToUR5KvaHsKXw/vvA!KwlTXPVDf0bK7lOdJGIY7Vl33N/phn4YBYWSsCzU6aPcawptoB9G5DykcNfXqVDZnF8b8aWwonBN!ybY= X-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@mpowercom.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!border2.nntp.ash.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.ash.giganews.com!nntp.mpowercom.net!news.mpowercom.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173206 "Julien Oster" wrote in message news:87k6zvmpc7.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org... > > Hmm. Isn't that the same kind of way differential SCSI still does it? > No, differential SCSI and most other twsited-pair differential setups (RS-422, RS-485) are voltage driven, where signaling is by means of a difference in voltage between two wires: space if they are the same, mark if the difference is over a certain threshhold. The idea is that any voltage spike from inductive coupling is applied equally to both wires, so the space/mark is preserved in the presence of noise. That's why an ethernet cable that isn't twisted is good for no more than about a foot. I once got a service call from an "expert" who had made all his short ethernet jumpers out of flat telephone cable instead of twisted pair. He couldn't understand why having wire pairs twisted together was so important... Current loop is based on current flow, not voltage. It is a low impedance device, deriving it's (not all that great) noise immunity from the assumption that noise can't generate enough current to be picked up as a signal. The more current needed the better. Not so great for power efficiency tho. :) Jack Peacock ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <1288.616T203T9523048@kltpzyxm.invalid> <87fzajmora.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org> Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 22 Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 10:58:28 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.106.206 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news1.nokia.com 1083581908 172.22.106.206 (Mon, 03 May 2004 13:58:28 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 13:58:28 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!zen.net.uk!dedekind.zen.co.uk!news-stoc.telia.net!news-stoa.telia.net!telia.net!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173237 In article <87fzajmora.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org>, Julien Oster wrote: > "Charlie Gibbs" writes: >> So what would be a good term anyway? If one exists, I can't >> think of it right now - but we need some unambiguous way to >> refer to asynchronous character-mode terminals. Hmmm... >> "character-mode"... maybe that's it. Comments, anyone? > No, sounds fine. "block mode" and "character mode" should do it. > However, there are also "line mode" terminals... but just using those > three terms does it and leaves space open for further specification of > what is meant. Indeed, isn't it nowadays common for terminal devices to be able to switch between line and character mode? -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### From: David Powell Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 03 May 2004 20:08:35 +0100 Lines: 22 Message-ID: References: <96ev6c.4ha1.ln@via.reistad.priv.no> <87n04sgpku.fld@barrow.com> <87ekq4gi7w.fld@barrow.com> <87k6zvmpc7.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org> Reply-To: ddotpowell@icuknet.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.25.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.net (194.153.25.205) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1083611274 206783 I 194.153.25.205 ([161127]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!205.25.153.194.dial.cix.gxn.NET!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173301 In article , "Jack Peacock" in alt.folklore.computers wrote: >"Julien Oster" wrote in message >news:87k6zvmpc7.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org... >> >> Hmm. Isn't that the same kind of way differential SCSI still does it? >> >No, differential SCSI and most other twsited-pair differential setups >(RS-422, RS-485) are voltage driven, where signaling is by means of a >difference in voltage between two wires: space if they are the same, mark if >the difference is over a certain threshhold. RS422 is differential. Calling the wires "A" and "B", if A negative wrt B then a mark, if A positive wrt B then a space. V in range 2 to 6 V. Regards, David P. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> <4092685f$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Tue, 04 May 04 10:38:10 GMT Lines: 18 Message-ID: <40979035$0$3029$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=8Z@Xo7Te8=[U\?GX=C_e[Z0R]m=BkYWIW:6bU3OT9S9ZRmOo9cb\]LWQ:41IliSW0\Sd;Z, "Bill Leary" wrote: > wrote in message >news:4092685f$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> >* Every time I tell anyone that I figure I've just tempted the Mist >> Demons. >> >> Nope. Murphy. > >I made peace with Murphy years ago. I allowed as that he'd always win, he >allowed as that I'd always loose, and we got along fine after that. That's no fun. Part of the game is to figure out all possible Murphy events, code in recoveries, then hold breath. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### From: Pete Verdon Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 00:04:14 +0100 Organization: University of Warwick, UK Lines: 8 Message-ID: References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> <4092685f$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40979035$0$3029$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Reply-To: usenet@verdonet.organisation.unitedkingdom NNTP-Posting-Host: cpc2-warw5-4-0-cust78.brhm.cable.ntl.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk 1083711854 9204 81.109.84.78 (4 May 2004 23:04:14 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@csv.warwick.ac.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 23:04:14 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 X-No-Archive: Yes Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!212.23.6.68.MISMATCH!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!193.60.199.26.MISMATCH!feed4.jnfs.ja.net!feed2.jnfs.ja.net!jnfs.ja.net!warwick!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173456 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > That's no fun. Part of the game is to figure out all possible > Murphy events, code in recoveries, then hold breath. ...waiting for the ones you didn't think of? Pete ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> <4092685f$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40979035$0$3029$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Wed, 05 May 04 10:27:02 GMT Lines: 19 Message-ID: <4098df25$0$2999$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=TEaQlW, Pete Verdon wrote: >jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > >> That's no fun. Part of the game is to figure out all possible >> Murphy events, code in recoveries, then hold breath. > >....waiting for the ones you didn't think of? Yup. And we were good at mess preventions. New hardware always had Murphys built in. TW's project report on the RH20 talks about a bunch of them. Each section ended with Good guys: 0 Bad guys: n+1, where n was the nth problem encountered. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: Mikko Nahkola Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <409269a6$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <1288.616T203T9523048@kltpzyxm.invalid> <87fzajmora.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org> Reply-To: mnahkola@trein.ntc.nokia.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux) Lines: 39 Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 11:58:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 172.22.106.206 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@nokia.com X-Trace: news1.nokia.com 1083758306 172.22.106.206 (Wed, 05 May 2004 14:58:26 EET DST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 14:58:26 EET DST Organization: Nokia Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.space.net!news.osn.de!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!feeder1.essentkabel.com!news.cambrium.nl!news.cambrium.nl!amsnews01.chello.com!surfnet.nl!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!nntp.inet.fi!inet.fi!newsfeed1.nokia.com!news1.nokia.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173495 In article , Brian Inglis wrote: > wrote: >>In article <87fzajmora.fsf@killer.ninja.frodoid.org>, Julien Oster wrote: >>> No, sounds fine. "block mode" and "character mode" should do it. >>> However, there are also "line mode" terminals... but just using those >>> three terms does it and leaves space open for further specification of >>> what is meant. >>Indeed, isn't it nowadays common for terminal devices to be able to >>switch between line and character mode? > Never met a line mode terminal: "line" mode interfaces like X.25 pads, > DECservers, and software equivalents were common at one time, where > "line" was defined as a bunch of characters ending with a control > character, or starting with an escape and ending X ms later; line and > character modes are normal for terminal drivers; and line mode is even > supported on block mode terminals using older terminal command line > interfaces. Well, sure, on a HP 70096, line mode is a sub-feature of block mode, but ... there's line mode and a different kind of line mode, apparently. Then again, that thing can talk line at a time even when in character mode ... Um. It seems that I've lost most of the pile of terminal manuals, I only managed to locate the "user" manuals for a couple of ICL ErgoView models, and they're rather light in this regard ("see the Reference Manual"). It might be that these indeed don't do line mode as such (but 3270 emulation is there.) I may be slightly confused with the telnet linemode thing here, for some reason. -- Mikko Nahkola #include #Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV. ###### From: Rupert Pigott Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 15:29:57 +0100 Organization: Titanic Enterprises Unlimited Lines: 27 Message-ID: <1083767397.787276@teapot.planet.gong> References: <408e589b$0$28898$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <7d4190pt88993brl7sqppff1g8ugafqjk2@4ax.com> <42e2905tu557hrutebi91el0s8rr1pujvc@4ax.com> <4092685f$0$28932$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40979035$0$3029$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <133g9053bo3upfgkvcn2o89gm83mm009pk@4ax.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: darkboong.demon.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1083767397 20030 80.177.7.220 (5 May 2004 14:29:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:29:57 +0000 (UTC) In-Reply-To: <133g9053bo3upfgkvcn2o89gm83mm009pk@4ax.com> X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.6a) Gecko/20031207 Cache-Post-Path: teapot.planet.gong!unknown@192.168.1.10 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:173516 Brian Inglis wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2004 21:46:15 +0100 in alt.folklore.computers, Pete > Fenelon wrote: > > >>"Can't happens" are then put in as >> >>cant_happen(__FILE, __LINE__); >> >>so I can see where something that couldn't happen happened ;) >> >>If you're modern you could even make it char *, char *, int, and add >>__FUNCTION__, but I'm a luddite ;) > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^ > __func__ -- __FUNCTION__ and __PRETTY_FUNCTION__ are GCCisms Welcome additions they were too. ;) Files and file lines *change* over time unfortunately, sometimes it is not possible to track down the offending bit of code that way. Been there done that, and was bloody glad when I could get an intelligable location reference in a 2 million line codebase at last. :) Cheers, Rupert ###### From: jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 16 May 2004 02:31:21 -0400 Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts Lines: 77 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1084689081 24255 166.84.1.5 (16 May 2004 06:31:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 06:31:21 +0000 (UTC) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshosting.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!129.250.35.142.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.stngva01.us.to.verio.net!newsfeed1.nycmny01.us.to.verio.net!newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu!panix!panix5.panix.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174334 >> For the hardware classically referred to as "dumb terminals," there were no mice. Sigh, I wish I had a list of photos to demonstrate this. There's a wide range of terminals from "not just dumb but brain dead" to "dumb but obedient" to "some smarts" to "capable of independent operations", and many divergences from the main path. The "first" terminals were purely mechanical: mechanical keyboard encoding the keystrokes into the binary characters, rotating wiper for parallel/serial conversion, solenoid activated rods, shafts or cables operating the printer. They were either interfaced directly to a computer, or indirectly via a modem. The Lear Siegler ADM3 was extremely popular because it was only about $1,000 for a CRT terminal (no more wasting paper!). The sales brochures said "dumb terminal, smart buy". It was a monochrome CRT with 24 lines of 80 characters. Lower case was an option at first. The early "glass TTYs" only allowed simple controls: clear screen (but the source had to delay to let it finish working!), line feed, carriage return. Later ones added positioning the cursor anywhere on the screen and character attributes (blink, reverse video, underline, etc) and then color and some graphics. Some had built in peripherals: tape drives and printers, or a printer port so the printer and terminal shared one serial line. Those are still in use for Point-Of-Sales terminals. Graphics terminals had many false starts. Tektronix used storage-scope technology for a graphics terminal that stored the vector graphics on the screen itself. DEC's GiGi used a drawing language all its own. >> It may not be obvious from this point in history, but terminals grew up as a >> replacement for the teletype. So, yeah, they were "actually so dumb." to >> begin with. Little more than a "glass teletype" at the beginning. >> The keyboard processed a keystroke and, in the truly dumb versions (say an >> ADM3) sent the ASCII for the key. That's why they were so versatile: they connected directly to modems, etc. >> My few recollections in dealing with "terminals" which had mice were all X >> terminals which were computers in their own right and communicated in a not >> particularly dumb way with the "mainframe." >They weren't necessarily X terminals - X is actually a pretty >low-level, bureaucratic and generally horrid way of communicating with >a larger computer. Things like the BLIT and its commercial nephew >the AT&T 5620 took an interesting client/server approach - graphics >software was downloaded to and executed in the terminal independently >of the host computer... (and from that philosophy sprang the >lightweight MGR window system from Bellcore, and also from Labs the Gnot, >the prototypical plan9 terminal...) I used 5620 terminals in the late 80s and they were a wonderful concept. The screen was rather high resolution but taller than wide (portrait, not landscape acpect ratio), ideal for document preparation. In "dumb terminal mode", it was about 60 lines by 24 characters and probably emulated a VT100 or ANSI terminal. But when the firmware was invoked by the "layers" tty mux, then I had an X-windows like environment for 7 virtual TTYs each in a separate sizable window. The terminal's CPU and RAM allowed downloading programs that ran in a client-server manner to the Unix system, thus allowing wonderful games (GEBACCA: Get Back At Corporate America), drawing programs (CIP: generated PIC output), a multifunction clock/alarm-clock/keyboard-lock/printer-driver applet among others. If you crashed the terminal's monitor, a mushroom cloud appeared with the error code. I still adore the red half-dome mouse by Depraz: extremely comfortable! "thin client" terminals are re-inventing all that again. ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 16 May 04 10:32:54 GMT Lines: 19 Message-ID: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=9NeH2nagJg>O[fk:Z65ES30R]m=BkYWI7:6bU3OT9S9:FFVIo]55gH4a;EOPEcF]84UW;XXA@Qha7 X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174339 In article , jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) wrote: >The early "glass TTYs" I don't like this term because I think of ASR36 (or is it 35?) when you say it. They had glass except in Maynard in the PDP-10 development land where field service refused to replace them because Hastings kept smashing them. /BAH /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 07:19:27 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 08:23:45 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 61 X-Trace: sv3-vHBOSEpD47IAwx7XyEs3q6t4wrfW9aSJekHpjdLET7pt1JhXNQ//CTzsRJYnEEeJ76ZC3ObSxz+rfNe!JBhwwkvIjZwUNdLrI7aRxBgGIFDtxV/KIQR2lk0ot1Va8denMjidH/7jehk= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174344 "Jeff Jonas" wrote in message news:c871rp$l52$1@panix5.panix.com... > >> For the hardware classically referred to as "dumb terminals," there were no mice. > > Sigh, I wish I had a list of photos to demonstrate this. > There's a wide range of terminals from "not just dumb but brain dead" > to "dumb but obedient" to "some smarts" to "capable of independent operations", > and many divergences from the main path. > > The "first" terminals were purely mechanical: > mechanical keyboard encoding the keystrokes into the binary characters, > rotating wiper for parallel/serial conversion, > solenoid activated rods, shafts or cables operating the printer. My first contact with one of these was an ASR33 (I think it was a 33) but I'm aware (I've seen pictures) of earlier models and have read of even earlier ones. > They were either interfaced directly to a computer, or indirectly via a modem. > > The Lear Siegler ADM3 was extremely popular because it was only about $1,000 > for a CRT terminal (no more wasting paper!). > The sales brochures said "dumb terminal, smart buy". > It was a monochrome CRT with 24 lines of 80 characters. > Lower case was an option at first. I thought the lower case became standard with the ADM3A, at the same time the addressable cursor (the suffix "A") arrived. I recall installing a couple of the add-on lower case option kits to ADM3's myself. > The early "glass TTYs" only allowed simple controls: > clear screen (but the source had to delay to let it finish working!), > line feed, carriage return. > Later ones added positioning the cursor anywhere on the screen > and character attributes (blink, reverse video, underline, etc) > and then color and some graphics. I seem to recall the later ADM3's also had an option to add an addressable cursor as well. They were basically ADM3A's, but with parts of the board not populated at the factory. I never did any of those upgrades myself, but I thought I heard of them being done by others. From this distance in time, I can't be sure. > Some had built in peripherals: tape drives and printers, > or a printer port so the printer and terminal shared one serial line. > Those are still in use for Point-Of-Sales terminals. Yep. Saved running another serial connection from the machine room to some remote office too or even more so if you were dialed up and only need to print, say, the parole report after entering the latest update from the guy sitting across the desk. I've got a couple of very late models like that down in the cellar. Including a couple of mini-terminals with a sort of cool 'print what's on the screen' command sequence. - Bill ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Sun, 16 May 04 12:39:05 GMT Lines: 73 Message-ID: <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=RQ:0JYa6:Jb8BTSjC[iH5h0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9j[;[oSC7iR0e?2V[Jo][@2olVO2f2858ei X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174349 In article , "Bill Leary" wrote: > wrote in message >news:40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> >The early "glass TTYs" >> >> I don't like this term because I think of ASR36 (or is it 35?) >> when you say it. > >I'm not familiar with either of these. Can you point to a picture >somewhere? For some strange reason I can't seem to recall the correct number anymore. I already have the word "patronage" written down on my wall's cheat sheet. I'm going to have to remember to write down the correct cybercrud for that grey TTY that was DEC's standard equipment in-house. I can't give you the magic incantation of a web site with pics (somebody more adept will). These TTYs were slate grey, more robust than the TTY33 (I never broke the grey ones by typing too fast..I always broke the 33s by typing too fast). The grey was usually the console TTY that was shipped with a PDP-10 (before those useless LA-nn were shipped). The glass was a convenient place to put full coffee cups or ashtrays, not both. > >> They had glass except in Maynard in the PDP-10 >> development land where field service refused to replace >> them because Hastings kept smashing them. > >Oh, do you mean they had glass in the covers or some such? Yup. It was a far better design than TTY33s because you could clean them without scratching. > >Reminds me of a story... At this point damn near everything >reminds me of a story. :) Good! That's the point of this newsgroup. > >We had a programmer on our IBM System 3 back when I worked for... well, >never mind where I worked... anyway, he'd get frustrated with "the damn >machine" and smash in the glass cover on the printer. It took something >like a week to get a new one, and the boss got more and more annoyed, with >the IBM FE, over the broken glass as we waited for a replacement. This >happened a few times a year. The FE complained, correctly, that it would >help if the programmer stopped breaking them. The boss didn't take that >well. The FE finally signed, decided "the customer is always right," and >when the next glass came in reported it "broken in transit," and installed >it. They sent a new one, which it put in his locker at the office. From >then on when the service call came in about a broken printer glass, he'd >process all the normal paperwork to order a new one, but then he'd go out >and install the one he already had on hand the next day. I don't know how >he handled the paperwork to account for his time, since it would have shown >him installing the glass a week before he received it. But he was creative >enough to solve the problem of keeping one on hand when they told he he >wasn't allowed to do that, so I suppose a little paperwork wasn't that big a >problem. I think I'd have ordered a special ECO that added little glass spikes. Or bought one of those clown toys that you could punch and it would pop back up for more. /BAH /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 07:38:19 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 08:42:37 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 41 X-Trace: sv3-gcE2mquXgvRiL4X+0GoaleJci2cQDJrZ0crz/spuP9k6cNmfEwgw4XaBBM9mjSMRqPk7lL2uKvVF0gg!Q19KurggkoulMmQc7JePTRb0z8ycjL/OuPgHHsjMMx8o9+rN9AVHaE3cPc4= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174345 wrote in message news:40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >The early "glass TTYs" > > I don't like this term because I think of ASR36 (or is it 35?) > when you say it. I'm not familiar with either of these. Can you point to a picture somewhere? > They had glass except in Maynard in the PDP-10 > development land where field service refused to replace > them because Hastings kept smashing them. Oh, do you mean they had glass in the covers or some such? Reminds me of a story... At this point damn near everything reminds me of a story. :) We had a programmer on our IBM System 3 back when I worked for... well, never mind where I worked... anyway, he'd get frustrated with "the damn machine" and smash in the glass cover on the printer. It took something like a week to get a new one, and the boss got more and more annoyed, with the IBM FE, over the broken glass as we waited for a replacement. This happened a few times a year. The FE complained, correctly, that it would help if the programmer stopped breaking them. The boss didn't take that well. The FE finally signed, decided "the customer is always right," and when the next glass came in reported it "broken in transit," and installed it. They sent a new one, which it put in his locker at the office. From then on when the service call came in about a broken printer glass, he'd process all the normal paperwork to order a new one, but then he'd go out and install the one he already had on hand the next day. I don't know how he handled the paperwork to account for his time, since it would have shown him installing the glass a week before he received it. But he was creative enough to solve the problem of keeping one on hand when they told he he wasn't allowed to do that, so I suppose a little paperwork wasn't that big a problem. - Bill ###### From: "Gary A. Gorgen" Organization: Tunxis Design Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> In-Reply-To: <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 44 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.7.126.247 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: attbi_s04 1084717037 24.7.126.247 (Sun, 16 May 2004 14:17:17 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 14:17:17 GMT Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 14:17:18 GMT Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!rcn!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!attbi_s04.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174353 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > In article , > "Bill Leary" wrote: > >> wrote in message >>news:40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> >>>>The early "glass TTYs" >>> >>>I don't like this term because I think of ASR36 (or is it 35?) >>>when you say it. >> >>I'm not familiar with either of these. Can you point to a picture >>somewhere? > > > For some strange reason I can't seem to recall the correct number > anymore. I already have the word "patronage" written down on my > wall's cheat sheet. I'm going to have to remember to write down > the correct cybercrud for that grey TTY that was DEC's standard > equipment in-house. I can't give you the magic incantation of > a web site with pics (somebody more adept will). These TTYs > were slate grey, more robust than the TTY33 (I never broke > the grey ones by typing too fast..I always broke the 33s by > typing too fast). The grey was usually the console TTY that > was shipped with a PDP-10 (before those useless LA-nn were > shipped). The glass was a convenient place to put full coffee > cups or ashtrays, not both. > I think you are talking about a Teletype Model 35 ? Glass top, ~150 lbs., gray, typeblock ~ 3x2 in. A mechanical marvel. :-) < snip > -- Gary A. Gorgen | "From ideas to PRODUCTS" tunxis@comcast.net | Tunxis Design Inc. | Cupertino, Ca. 95014 ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 09:45:25 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 10:49:42 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 47 X-Trace: sv3-7BNuobVC5IFmFJdbYqWFMQc1tit/MjpQVM/8fPKRHy1NDvDfqFVko46i0Ks3mlKlR5RvvQOoJrGjDdR!IjMkXjeaAsF9+eS8Pz318ZhDRHZrbY9xmWpTYpvQhR31PY/dVGOCUIlqPxU= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed1.news.rcn.net!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174355 wrote in message news:40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >Oh, do you mean they had glass in the covers or some such? > > Yup. It was a far better design than TTY33s because you could > clean them without scratching. Yes. The covers over the print units on our 33's were always getting gouged up. Eventually, it got to where if you wanted to read them before they scrolled up, you had to flip up the cover to do so. If the day got busy (or if I was programming on it) I usually just took the cover off. > >Reminds me of a story... At this point damn near everything > >reminds me of a story. :) > > Good! That's the point of this newsgroup. I wonder sometimes, but I'd hoped so. Anything with "folklore" in the title it seems like it should be. > >We had a programmer on our IBM System 3 back when I worked for... well, > >never mind where I worked... anyway, he'd get frustrated with "the damn > >machine" and smash in the glass cover on the printer. It took something > >... > > I think I'd have ordered a special ECO that added little glass spikes. > Or bought one of those clown toys that you could punch and it would > pop back up for more. And he WAS doing it with his bare fists too. I got the impression the boss was making him pay for them, but still, I'd have thought that sort of behavior would be seen as a problem. I don't know if those clown things existed back in the late '70's / early '80's, but even if they did the boss wasn't fond of "decorations" around the shop. I proposed the idea of putting barbed wire over the glass cover, but he didn't think that was too good an idea either. It was strange too because I encountered this "frustration in programming == break the printer glass" at another System 3 site as well. I programmed those things myself and didn't find them any more frustrating than any other system with similar limitations. I wondered if the same programmer had followed me, since I never met him in person, just saw the damage, at the second place. - Bill ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 09:49:31 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 10:53:49 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 23 X-Trace: sv3-azmgcXcGw4J3wp5RbvE2DBNPcHragzqHLVdX70WqOfTvQEhTxxxfOU1Xv4S9EBdRl+11NLfc960ekSi!MKj/o2BgNa+JRFOzjdDR0fPlT7ula6K1f9tvtmwy1B5hNVTlZC3UdqNoDgo= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!c03.atl99!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174357 wrote in message news:40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >I'm not familiar with either of these. Can you point to a picture > >somewhere? > > For some strange reason I can't seem to recall the correct number > ... > typing too fast). The grey was usually the console TTY that > was shipped with a PDP-10 (before those useless LA-nn were > shipped). The glass was a convenient place to put full coffee > cups or ashtrays, not both. By the time I was at a shop using DEC equipment, we were using VAX systems, and they all came with the the dot-matrix things (which I think were the LA's?), or in one case we had an ASR-33 attached to one as the console for a while, then put a VT52 on it. DEC FS really wanted a hardcopy console, but we arranged the two VAXen close enough together so we could move the cable from one to the other (or did we put in a switch?) and shared that one hard copy console between them. - Bill ###### From: iddw@hotmail.com (Dave Hansen) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 14:54:25 GMT Lines: 23 Message-ID: <40a78035.146252772@News.individual.net> References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de c6yAz657YRngqOd64HNiqA3fsLOUFUOZzD9JrS673ZmrxX3Do= X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.21/32.243 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174356 On Sun, 16 May 04 12:39:05 GMT, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: >In article , > "Bill Leary" wrote: [...] >>We had a programmer on our IBM System 3 back when I worked for... well, >>never mind where I worked... anyway, he'd get frustrated with "the damn >>machine" and smash in the glass cover on the printer. It took something >>like a week to get a new one, and the boss got more and more annoyed, with >>the IBM FE, over the broken glass as we waited for a replacement. This [...] > >I think I'd have ordered a special ECO that added little glass spikes. >Or bought one of those clown toys that you could punch and it would >pop back up for more. Or maybe plexiglass? Regards, -=Dave -- Change is inevitable, progress is not. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 10:00:56 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a78035.146252772@News.individual.net> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 11:05:14 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 29 X-Trace: sv3-6au3CYQAOZT2iQBTGDHJA8kn59TSg8wQLmF6o39kEpDmxGMCJE0mBGCNui+XaSV4X2PKLnor22H+lMI!qUYpN8kidBYnUgBaZtrOlH+6DBj49Fl9VXoa0te0TpdybsxvrRJ4OQ3OCxw= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174358 "Dave Hansen" wrote in message news:40a78035.146252772@News.individual.net... > >I think I'd have ordered a special ECO that added little glass spikes. > >Or bought one of those clown toys that you could punch and it would > >pop back up for more. > > Or maybe plexiglass? Plexi shatters, it's just (in my experience anyway) harder to break and safer when it does than glass. I have a window upstairs my kids kept breaking, so I had it replaced with plexiglass. They broke it anyway. Advantage was it broke in nice, big, safe pieces this time. Replaced it with Lexlan (sp?) next time. More flexable than plexi, I guess. This stuff pops out rather than breaking. Well, used to. They've finally outgrown breaking it / knocking it out. Still, in the thickness of that printer glass (it was about twice the thickness of a normal window glass) it might have provided enough "give" to do the job. I don't recall if anyone ever proposed putting plastic in it instead of glass. At least it was some kind of safety glass. When it shattered it (mostly) stayed together. Some fragments had to be vacuumed out of the printer housing, but mostly it could be removed in one piece. I'm still surprised to this day that they guy kept breaking them. And without breaking his hands. - Bill ###### From: David Powell Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 18:37:38 +0100 Lines: 17 Message-ID: <7k9fa0lll7td8f3dlb2tiqjct312i1l3hk@4ax.com> References: Reply-To: ddotpowell@icuknet.co.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de +0CM0kYjqkakd06xTHI2EwJHF/HVvDYIHDtA34Haa2kHTovM+p X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174376 In article , jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) in alt.folklore.computers wrote: [dumb terminals] > >Some had built in peripherals: tape drives and printers, >or a printer port so the printer and terminal shared one serial line. >Those are still in use for Point-Of-Sales terminals. > Sometimes with a relay wired across the "bell", so that ^G opens the cash drawer. :) Regards, David P. ###### From: Charles Richmond Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Sun, 16 May 2004 22:37:13 -0700 Organization: Canine Computer Center Message-ID: <40A84F8A.48A5360D@plano.net> Reply-To: richmond@nospam.plano.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7C-CCK-MCD {C-UDP; EBM-APPLE} (Macintosh; I; PPC) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 16 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!news.moat.net!border1.nntp.sjc.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174394 jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > > [snip...] [snip...] [snip...] > > I think I'd have ordered a special ECO that added little glass spikes. > Or bought one of those clown toys that you could punch and it would > pop back up for more. > Today, of course, plexiglass could be used...which is a damn sight harder to break than regular glass. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------+ | Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net | +----------------------------------------------------------------+ ###### Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers From: jmfbahciv@aol.com Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: UltraNet Communications, Inc. References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4 Date: Mon, 17 May 04 10:02:45 GMT Lines: 81 Message-ID: <40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Trace: DXC=lI9G\T^l^;`gAYX5i\dYfj0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jR;XeLMj8<\gaRAVNS:^U:o`FZbbYK>gRo X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!nntp.abs.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174430 In article , "Bill Leary" wrote: > wrote in message >news:40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... >> >Oh, do you mean they had glass in the covers or some such? >> >> Yup. It was a far better design than TTY33s because you could >> clean them without scratching. > >Yes. The covers over the print units on our 33's were always getting gouged >up. Eventually, it got to where if you wanted to read them before they >scrolled up, you had to flip up the cover to do so. If the day got busy (or >if I was programming on it) I usually just took the cover off. I always took the cover off if I had to use one. Not only would the plastic get scratched up but for some strange reason, the level of lid was exactly the correct angle to reflect any fluorescent light back into my eye. > >> >Reminds me of a story... At this point damn near everything >> >reminds me of a story. :) >> >> Good! That's the point of this newsgroup. > >I wonder sometimes, but I'd hoped so. >Anything with "folklore" in the title >it seems like it should be. This is a unique folklore group in that we're still making the folklore. The turnaround time of the computer biz folklore is very, very small compared with other stuff. > >> >We had a programmer on our IBM System 3 back when I worked for... well, >> >never mind where I worked... anyway, he'd get frustrated with "the damn >> >machine" and smash in the glass cover on the printer. It took something >> >... >> >> I think I'd have ordered a special ECO that added little glass spikes. >> Or bought one of those clown toys that you could punch and it would >> pop back up for more. > >And he WAS doing it with his bare fists too. Good grief. Hastings has a twin. > .. I got the impression the boss >was making him pay for them, but still, I'd have thought that sort of >behavior would be seen as a problem. I don't know if those clown things >existed back in the late '70's / early '80's, but even if they did the boss >wasn't fond of "decorations" around the shop. I proposed the idea of >putting barbed wire over the glass cover, but he didn't think that was too >good an idea either. If you have a guy whose production brings in millions, there may be an incentive in not firing the guy. Hastings was talked to and talked to and talked to and he still would let loose. I just swore a blue streak. > >It was strange too because I encountered this "frustration >in programming == >break the printer glass" at another System 3 site as well. I programmed >those things myself and didn't find them any more >frustrating than any other >system with similar limitations. I wondered if the same programmer had >followed me, since I never met him in person, just saw the damage, at the >second place. I've found that certain people kept crossing my path, especially if they were a RPITA. /BAH Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 06:47:22 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 07:43:25 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 72 X-Trace: sv3-3uPtOt53lRdJok8lw/ErifbmXZ+6JkoyRIvfwwWwc+4pdfymcUGg2DEaggN1Iexzt0IKGuJuyxvnA2Z!gEaKWVX1XCYxp15/U9a2qYi+HFAyECuY+ZnKslM4fjhcCwSuCNKvCQLqxzE= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174436 wrote in message news:40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >Yes. The covers over the print units on our 33's were always > >getting gouged up. Eventually, it got to where if you wanted > >to read them before they scrolled up, you had to flip up the > >cover to do so. If the day got busy (or if I was programming > >on it) I usually just took the cover off. > > I always took the cover off if I had to use one. Not only > would the plastic get scratched up but for some strange > reason, the level of lid was exactly the correct angle to > reflect any fluorescent light back into my eye. I don't recall that issue. The 33's I used most were up against the wall, so the lights were behind us. The later ones were in the middle of the machine room, but I didn't use them much so I don't recall if the lights were an issue. My habits were fixed by then and I probably flipped up the cover or took it off before reflection got to be an issue. I *do* recall what a surprise it was to see an un-battered-to-death ASR-33, because it has always been kept in the machine room, the room had always been climate controlled and filtered, and the ASR had been little used. > This is a unique folklore group in that we're still making > the folklore. The turnaround time of the computer biz folklore > is very, very small compared with other stuff. Good observation. Well, I'll continue to spout memory as it's dredged up then. > >And he WAS doing it with his bare fists too. > > Good grief. Hastings has a twin. Did Hastings ever program RPG II on IBM System 3's ? > > .. I got the impression the boss > >was making him pay for them, but still, I'd have thought that sort of > >... > > If you have a guy whose production brings in millions, there may > be an incentive in not firing the guy. Hastings was talked to > and talked to and talked to and he still would let loose. I just > swore a blue streak. Oh, I understood (and even more today understand) the realities. It just seemed amazingly undisciplined for someone in a profession were disciplined thought is necessary. Or maybe my approach to programming is odd. I know the few times I've found that the error really WAS the toolset (compiler, linker, what have you) or machine (disk problem, CPU but) I was simply genuinely surprised. In every other case I just assumed I'd missed something and went back and kept trying. Bashing the MACHINE because it wouldn't cooperate and do what I wanted it to do just never occurred to me. These days I expect they'd have sent him for counceling for fear he'd smash somebody rather than something. Or for fear that someone would express such a fear and they'd end up with a lawsuit. > >It was strange too because I encountered this "frustration > >... > >second place. > > I've found that certain people kept crossing my path, especially > if they were a RPITA. Ah, I see I'm about to have another learning experience. Always a good way to start a Monday. I've unsure of RPITA. I'll guess "Royal Pain In The A**." Right? - Bill ###### From: Gene Wirchenko Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 11:44:21 -0700 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: Reply-To: genew@mail.ocis.net References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 24 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!in.100proofnews.com!tdsnet-transit!newspeer.tds.net!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174458 "Bill Leary" wrote: > wrote in message >news:40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... [snip] >> I've found that certain people kept crossing my path, especially >> if they were a RPITA. > >Ah, I see I'm about to have another learning experience. Always a good way >to start a Monday. I've unsure of RPITA. I'll guess "Royal Pain In The >A**." Right? Yes, and probably "Real ...", too. Sincerely, Gene Wirchenko Computerese Irregular Verb Conjugation: I have preferences. You have biases. He/She has prejudices. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 17:27:17 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:31:38 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: <37-dnTTtdLLYoTTdRVn-sA@giganews.com> Lines: 14 X-Trace: sv3-e3Gm2Cbvin4EGefOJ3s5hz+3xxe0QUfW5IWGVfJaq46lm6Bt1vtvcnvDoPG+f4irOiFm4F1A9iAs1bB!o7uX3xibipKAgwgaa0XP8W03PTUXjLDlS8cEWfkJYmSe2aX2hDnbC//eoA0= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news2.euro.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!meganewsservers.com!feeder2.on.meganewsservers.com!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174478 "Gene Wirchenko" wrote in message news:v8tha0h2to0u7b1fhrpsl1le6hsft5iokq@4ax.com... > >Ah, I see I'm about to have another learning experience. Always a good way > >to start a Monday. I've unsure of RPITA. I'll guess "Royal Pain In The > >A**." Right? > > Yes, and probably "Real ...", too. Of course, and a good way to end the day. Thanks. - Bill ###### From: Walter Bushell Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:23:03 -0400 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 87 Message-ID: References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: user-0cdfnfg.cable.mindspring.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1084846983 9965 24.215.221.240 (18 May 2004 02:23:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 02:23:03 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X) Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.tesion.net!news.belwue.de!news.ipv6.iphh.net!iphh.net!news.osn.de!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newspeer1.stngva01.us.to.verio.net!news.verio.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!proto Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174489 In article <40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote: > In article , > "Bill Leary" wrote: > > wrote in message > >news:40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com... > >> >Oh, do you mean they had glass in the covers or some such? > >> > >> Yup. It was a far better design than TTY33s because you could > >> clean them without scratching. > > > >Yes. The covers over the print units on our 33's were always getting > gouged > >up. Eventually, it got to where if you wanted to read them before they > >scrolled up, you had to flip up the cover to do so. If the day got busy > (or > >if I was programming on it) I usually just took the cover off. > > I always took the cover off if I had to use one. Not only > would the plastic get scratched up but for some strange reason, > the level of lid was exactly the correct angle to reflect > any fluorescent light back into my eye. > > > > > >> >Reminds me of a story... At this point damn near everything > >> >reminds me of a story. :) > >> > >> Good! That's the point of this newsgroup. > > > >I wonder sometimes, but I'd hoped so. > >Anything with "folklore" in the title > >it seems like it should be. > > This is a unique folklore group in that we're still making > the folklore. The turnaround time of the computer biz folklore > is very, very small compared with other stuff. > > > > >> >We had a programmer on our IBM System 3 back when I worked for... well, > >> >never mind where I worked... anyway, he'd get frustrated with "the damn > >> >machine" and smash in the glass cover on the printer. It took > something > >> >... > >> > >> I think I'd have ordered a special ECO that added little glass spikes. > >> Or bought one of those clown toys that you could punch and it would > >> pop back up for more. > > > >And he WAS doing it with his bare fists too. > > Good grief. Hastings has a twin. > > > .. I got the impression the boss > >was making him pay for them, but still, I'd have thought that sort of > >behavior would be seen as a problem. I don't know if those clown things > >existed back in the late '70's / early '80's, but even if they did the > boss > >wasn't fond of "decorations" around the shop. I proposed the idea of > >putting barbed wire over the glass cover, but he didn't think that was too > >good an idea either. > > If you have a guy whose production brings in millions, there may > be an incentive in not firing the guy. Hastings was talked to > and talked to and talked to and he still would let loose. I just > swore a blue streak. > > > > >It was strange too because I encountered this "frustration > >in programming == > >break the printer glass" at another System 3 site as well. I programmed > >those things myself and didn't find them any more > >frustrating than any other > >system with similar limitations. I wondered if the same programmer had > >followed me, since I never met him in person, just saw the damage, at the > >second place. > > I've found that certain people kept crossing my path, especially > if they were a RPITA. > > /BAH > > Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail. I always thought a serious programming facility should include a padded room. ###### NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 23:12:34 -0500 From: "Bill Leary" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: <40a751b4$0$3004$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a76f46$0$3053$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <40a89c2e$0$2992$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 00:16:56 -0400 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: Lines: 17 X-Trace: sv3-0brMsV22JtMWuRa97KW2FrGtseLTm9AJz3cYlkLq7yh2j2po6ju9gzCzzJNCRYClt/vUQthKOoKpVfL!UwZ7EBilmbKZvJX1eqqlDCc6rgYLE6gzOdP8ec5/1W9EVtzjKFVvpEmqG0s= X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!209.11.36.156.MISMATCH!nntp-server.pubsub.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174490 "Walter Bushell" wrote in message news:proto-D35CF0.22230317052004@reader2.panix.com... > I always thought a serious programming facility should include a padded > room. In my previous job, we had one... sort of. It was a meditation room. Pillows on the floor, pleasant colors, soothing music, and all that. I gather many of my fellow programmers found it useful. My usual recourse when I was at the limit was to go for a walk outdoors. I found that a walk in seven degrees Fahrenheit with a driving snow quickly restored my perspective on what was and was not important. A trip out into the apple orchard out back during the warmer months was nearly as effective. - Bill ###### From: "Dennis Ritchie" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 04:58:52 -0000 Organization: Bell Labs Lines: 56 Message-ID: <2gtitoF6i7q4U1@uni-berlin.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1wcFjAA309q2t20Y2Gpxsw/BhBN0s8oaeQ7l2nonY8XvnOhx4W X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Path: redlance.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.imp.ch!news.imp.ch!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail Xref: redlance.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:174492 "Jeff Jonas" wrote in message news:c871rp$l52$1@panix5.panix.com... .... > > ... Things like the BLIT and its commercial nephew > >the AT&T 5620 took an interesting client/server approach - graphics > >software was downloaded to and executed in the terminal independently > >of the host computer... (and from that philosophy sprang the > >lightweight MGR window system from Bellcore, and also from Labs the Gnot, > >the prototypical plan9 terminal...) > > I used 5620 terminals in the late 80s and they were a wonderful concept. Right. I used all of the series. They had various names. The first was the Jerq, a takeoff from Perq. Rob Pike saw the 3 Rivers Perq at Lucasfilm, and that got him interested. Dave Ditzel (now CTO at Transmeta) had built a predecessor at Bell Labs, but Rob started thinking about software. The Teletype Model Shop built several of them for us. The earliest ones were very quirky. The worst irritation was that any static discharge (e.g. by touching the keyboard after shifting in the chair) would reset the terminal. It had only a tiny ROM, so when it reset, you would have to download its software--about 10 minutes at 120 cps. One learned to touch (in really dry weather, cling to) the metal case. > The screen was rather high resolution but taller than wide > (portrait, not landscape acpect ratio), > ideal for document preparation. > In "dumb terminal mode", it was about 60 lines by 24 characters > and probably emulated a VT100 or ANSI terminal. > But when the firmware was invoked by the "layers" tty mux, > then I had an X-windows like environment for 7 virtual TTYs each in a > separate sizable window. The terminal's CPU and RAM allowed downloading programs > that ran in a client-server manner to the Unix system, > thus allowing wonderful games (GEBACCA: Get Back At Corporate America), Gebaca was an asteroids-type game with the logos of various companies (AT&T, IBM Macdonalds etc) that you needed to blast before one of their splitoffs hit you. Much fun We had a local hack of this called GEBAM (get back at management) which substituted local members of management. ... > I still adore the red half-dome mouse by Depraz: extremely comfortable! I still have a couple, probably not working, although they might be resuscitated. Nice mice indeed, though fragile. > "thin client" terminals are re-inventing all that again. I managed to save Dave Dijkstra's notes on the line of terminals. I should find a way to make them available. Dennis ###### Reply-To: "Jim Nugent" From: "Jim Nugent" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers References: Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Lines: 30 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.75.90.52 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr28.news.prodigy.com 1085759308 ST000 68.75.90.52 (Fri, 28 May 2004 11:48:28 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 11:48:28 EDT Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com X-UserInfo1: TSUGG[CEXJWUCQ\[IJJXO\TDFZ\@@FXLM@TDOCQDJ@_@FNHB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 15:48:28 GMT Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!feed.news.tiscali.de!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr28.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:175164 "Jeff Jonas" wrote in message news:c871rp$l52$1@panix5.panix.com... > >> For the hardware classically referred to as "dumb terminals," there were no mice. > > Sigh, I wish I had a list of photos to demonstrate this. > There's a wide range of terminals from "not just dumb but brain dead" > to "dumb but obedient" to "some smarts" to "capable of independent operations", > and many divergences from the main path. > > The "first" terminals were purely mechanical: > mechanical keyboard encoding the keystrokes into the binary characters, > rotating wiper for parallel/serial conversion, > solenoid activated rods, shafts or cables operating the printer. When I was at Vitro Labs in the 70's we got a piece of DEC equipment dubbed a "smart terminal." It was a console with an impact pin printer and a serial (DTE) interface. I don't know which features it had that justified calling it smart, but I do remember coming in one morning to find water all over the floor from a roof leak. The DEC terminal was filled with water. We decided that it clearly wasn't "smart" enough to come in out of the rain, in any case. -- Jim "Remember, an amateur built the Ark; professionals built the Titanic." ###### From: jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: 13 Jun 2004 02:50:01 -0400 Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: <2gtitoF6i7q4U1@uni-berlin.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix5.panix.com X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1087109401 6856 166.84.1.5 (13 Jun 2004 06:50:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2004 06:50:01 +0000 (UTC) Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!newsfeed1.ip.tiscali.net!tiscali!newsfeed2.ip.tiscali.net!newshosting.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!129.250.35.142.MISMATCH!newsfeed1.stngva01.us.to.verio.net!newspeer1.stngva01.us.to.verio.net!news.verio.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!panix5.panix.com!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:176376 "Dennis Ritchie" posted: > Right. I used all of the series. They had various names. The first was > the Jerq, a takeoff from Perq. Rob Pike saw the 3 Rivers Perq > at Lucasfilm, and that got him interested. Dave Ditzel > (now CTO at Transmeta) had built a predecessor at Bell Labs, Thanks for the kind reply. I miss those fun names! I still have my GNAT terminal which I bought surplus at the Trenton Computer Fest. It's an AT&T clone of the ADM3A but with a detached keyboard. I posted a "what is this" query to an AT&T internal newsgroup and a kind fellow from the Illinois support group sent me the manual for the General Network Access Terminal. There were other GN* devices, such as GNOME as part of Spidernet. >> I still adore the red half-dome mouse by Depraz: extremely comfortable! > >I still have a couple, probably not working, although they might be >resuscitated. Nice mice indeed, though fragile. The buttons tended to snap off, but I remember finding the switches in a mail order parts catalogue. One of HP's facilities is mostly AT&T refugees from the AT&T IS splitup. The red mice feature prominently in the displays of kids' art using computer parts a-la the old Honeywell ads. A kind fellow at AT&T's Summit Facility cut up thin cork pads (engine gasket material) for the first mouse-pads. The metal-ball mice did well on those. The plastic-ball mice were intended for bare tables. I know of no brass-ball mice. :-) tangentally related: are there are online references to AT&T's "CO-LAN" which gave data over existing phone lines? Was it a precursor to DSL? >> "thin client" terminals are re-inventing all that again. > >I managed to save Dave Dijkstra's notes on the line of terminals. >I should find a way to make them available. I look forward to that. ###### From: "Dennis Ritchie" Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 04:28:18 -0000 Organization: Bell Labs Lines: 58 Message-ID: <2j7bi7Fu40ioU1@uni-berlin.de> References: <2gtitoF6i7q4U1@uni-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de sWYtw35rpRDOyWfTHim2GQawut3U5pE0btT+lE2u+80VOA5pEI X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600 Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!news.belwue.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:176429 "Jeff Jonas" wrote in message news:cagtep$ip3$1@panix5.panix.com... .... > Thanks for the kind reply. I miss those fun names! > I still have my GNAT terminal which I bought surplus at the Trenton Computer Fest. > It's an AT&T clone of the ADM3A but with a detached keyboard. > I posted a "what is this" query to an AT&T internal newsgroup > and a kind fellow from the Illinois support group sent me the manual > for the General Network Access Terminal. > There were other GN* devices, such as GNOME as part of Spidernet. I don't think these were related to the GNOT. > >> I still adore the red half-dome mouse by Depraz: extremely comfortable! .... > A kind fellow at AT&T's Summit Facility cut up thin cork pads > (engine gasket material) for the first mouse-pads. > The metal-ball mice did well on those. > The plastic-ball mice were intended for bare tables. > I know of no brass-ball mice. :-) I still have some of those cork pads. > > tangentally related: are there are online references to > AT&T's "CO-LAN" which gave data over existing phone lines? > Was it a precursor to DSL? CO-LAN (CO meaning Central Office) was the name used by some of the phone companies for a dial-up or leased-line service over Datakit hardware. It was, in its own small way, somewhat of a money-spinner in the 1980s and maybe for a while after. The technology was more like ATM or maybe X.25; the link-level protocol used small fixed-length packets that were circuit-switched, with each packet header naming a short conversation-ID. The switching was done in hardware once the connection was established. It was pretty much swamped by the growth of IP networks; although it had various advantages, there never were any cheap commodity interfaces (like Ethernet) or routers. It also suffered because for regulatory reasons, AT&T felt it had to split the technology between two products, one Datakit-based (sold mostly to phone companies) another called ISN (sold in regular commercial channels). The products grew apart technically, even though they were basically the same. > >I managed to save Dave Dijkstra's notes on the line of terminals. > >I should find a way to make them available. It turns out that Dijkstra's own pages still live on in Bell Labs, although he's left. See http://www.bell-labs.com/user/dwd/5620faq.html Some links will be dead, but his FAQ has some good stuff. Dennis ###### X-Trace-PostClient-IP: 68.147.131.211 From: Brian Inglis Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: were dumb terminals actually so dumb??? Organization: Systematic Software Reply-To: Brian.Inglis@SystematicSw.ab.ca Message-ID: References: <2gtitoF6i7q4U1@uni-berlin.de> <2j7bi7Fu40ioU1@uni-berlin.de> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 20 Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:06:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.71.223.147 X-Complaints-To: abuse@shaw.ca X-Trace: pd7tw2no 1087286779 24.71.223.147 (Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:06:19 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 02:06:19 MDT Path: nightfall.franklin.ch!pfaff2.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!irazu.switch.ch!switch.ch!solnet.ch!solnet.ch!news2.euro.net!216.196.98.140.MISMATCH!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!pd7tw2no.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail Xref: nightfall.franklin.ch alt.folklore.computers:176437 On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 04:28:18 -0000 in alt.folklore.computers, "Dennis Ritchie" wrote: >"Jeff Jonas" wrote in message news:cagtep$ip3$1@panix5.panix.com... >> >I managed to save Dave Dijkstra's notes on the line of terminals. >> >I should find a way to make them available. > >It turns out that Dijkstra's own pages still live on in Bell Labs, although >he's left. See > http://www.bell-labs.com/user/dwd/5620faq.html ObNitPick: According to that page, DWD uses a y where EWD used ij. I wondered about the latter's hitherto unheralded association with BL. -- Thanks. Take care, Brian Inglis Calgary, Alberta, Canada Brian.Inglis@CSi.com (Brian dot Inglis at SystematicSw dot ab dot ca) fake address use address above to reply