"A recent edit to the caption of the top picture claimed that the Type 30 CRT was a vector display.  It wasn't—it was a dot plotter.  To program it, you loaded the AC and IO registers with the X and Y coordinates of the dot, then issued the display IOT instruction.  I am putting this note here rather than just changing the article to avoid an edit war.  If there are no objections I will correct the caption.  If there are I will try to find a reference.    

 Here's a reference, from an early PDP-1 manual.  See pages 8 and 9: PDP-1 Input-Output Systems Manual F-25.    

 :Well, the vector monitor page says that a ""vector monitor"" is 

 ::...a type of CRT, similar to the oscilloscope. In a vector display, the image is composed of drawn lines rather than a grid of glowing pixels as in raster graphics. The electron beam follows an arbitrary path tracing the connected sloped lines, rather than following the same horizontal raster path for all images. The beam skips over dark areas of the image without visiting their points. 

 :and the Type 30, from the description, is definitely a display where ""the electron beam follows an arbitrary path ... rather than following the same horizontal raster path for all images"".  Perhaps the Type 30 is different from other ""beam-steering"" displays, but it's definitely different from a ""vector graphics"" display in the sense that much of the vector graphics page talks about - that page is mainly about graphical objects described by ""vector""-format descriptions of images that are turned into raster sequences by CPU or GPU hardware or both and displayed on a raster display: 

 ::Computer displays are made up from grids of small rectangular cells called pixels; the term comes from ""picture elements"". The picture is built up from these cells. The smaller and closer the cells are together, the better the quality (resolution) of the image, but the bigger the file needed to store the data. However, modern storage devices and working memory have gigabyte, even terabyte capacities, so there is less need for particularly compact forms of data. 

 ::Modern displays and printers are raster devices; vector formats have to be converted to raster format (bitmaps – pixel arrays) before they can be rendered (displayed or printed). ... 

 :If you want to refer to it in the caption as a ""point plotter oscilloscope"" display, or something such as that, I would have no objection.  Linking to vector graphics in the caption would be a mistake, as it would be misleading.  (And, yes, the vector graphics page is itself misleading when it talks about beam-steering displays in the beginning of the ""Applications"" section.  There really should be pages about ""vector displays"", i.e. beam-steering displays, and ""raster displays"", i.e. CRT displays where the beam does TV-style scanning and non-CRT displays such as modern LCD etc. displays, and separate pages about ""vector graphics"", whether implemented on vector or raster displays, and ""raster graphics"".  If the Type 30 was not a ""vector display"", perhaps a third display type needs to be described, as it's definitely not a raster display.)    

 ::What you () are saying is consistent with what I remember from seeing the display (a long time ago), and you have a good ref.  I suggest that you add a short paragraph about the display, with the footnote reference, in addition to fixing the caption. The distinction between a dot plotting display and a true vector display is very important, and shouldn't be muddled or glossed over. The topic probably deserves a small section in the Vector graphics article, or its own small stand-alone article. 

 ::I once interfaced a dot plotter display to a PDP-11 for our own homebrew version of ""Spacewar""; we certainly knew what a vector display was, but couldn't afford the mini-fridge sized vector processor hardware (mid-1970s).  The PDP-11 was fast enough to draw a decent Spacewar image without too much flicker, good enough for a lab Open House family day.    

 :::If the dot-plotting display vs. vector display deserves a discussion, it would belong in vector monitor, not vector graphics, or in an article about dot-plotting displays.  I remember some Slashdotter confused about this, who thought that, with more use of ""vector graphics"" in the ""high-level description of graphic objects isn't raster-based, an