From: dsiebert@icaen.uiowa.edu (Doug Siebert)
Subject: Re: Smartcom II offer ?
Organization: Iowa Computer Aided Engineering Network, University of Iowa
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 22:50:14 GMT

bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

>In article <1992Dec21.023526.9873@icaen.uiowa.edu>, dsiebert@icaen.uiowa.edu (Doug Siebert) writes:
>> 
>> I'll chime in and second (or is it fourth by now?) this as well.  It is
>> patently ridiculous to claim a limitation of your program is a "feature"
>> providing better VT102 emulation than other programs.  

>I don't think it is "patently ridiculous" at all. First of all, I don't
>claim this is a "feature." It is just the way the current program works.
>There are several reasons for this, and one of them is the dedication to
>rigorous emulation. (In light of comments received here and in mail,
>some of that dedication may be misplaced)

If there are other reasons for this (such as speed of the emulator or
simplicity in coding it, then I can accept that as a reason.  You seemed to
imply before that the only reason for this was because a VT102 has only 24
lines.  I stand by my "patently ridiculous" quote if the only reason that the
program provides 24 lines is because of VT102 emulation -- there are at least
1000 people using a VT100/102 emulation for every 1 person using a real VT102
or VT100, I'd imagine, and most of those 1000 have at least the option to size
their screen differently.  And Unix (and probably VMS et al) provide simple
methods for the user to tell the system how large his or her window is and
use the entire window, rather than just the top 24 lines.


>> I've heard of one
>> comm program (I think it is for the PC) that claims to emulate the VT100
>> *perfectly*.  It goes so far as to have a switch which allows you to turn
>> on/off the bugs present in a real life VT100!  

>Pray tell, which emulator is this?

I can't remember the name, unfortunately, or I'd have posted it.  Perhaps some
readers familiar with the PC world can post the name of this program?  I did
find it rather humorous at the time, but I suppose somewhere out there there
is software that expects those VT100 bugs to be present.  I know that the
'vttest' package for Unix that tests your emulation of a VT100 has a section
to check for the presence of known VT100 bugs.


>> Why not have an 'anal' switch
>> for Smartcom II, which greys out the option real users want for controlling
>> the number of lines?

>Come on! I'm not being dogmatic here. I opened the question to input. I'm
>listening. I'm taking notes. And you proceed to blast me as being 'anal' for
>a design decision made years ago on the basis of the information on hand at
>the time. Give me a break. That's no way to convince me.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to flame.  I just think that going so far in an
emulation that you can't have other than 24 lines is a bit much, and most
users would probably agree that it would be unnecessarily restrictive to not
even allow the presence of an option to change the number of lines, and those
who wish a pure and exact VT102 emulation can leave it at 24.  I think it is
a laudable goal to pursue exact emulation, but it is important recognize some
users may wish a few non-standard elements adding to their emulation that the
VT102 doesn't support.  I assume Smartcom II provides scripting and macros,
even though such options were not present on a VT102 :-)


>> I have only a Mac Plus, so you'd probably think I wouldn't care about this.
>> But I do, quite a bit actually.  I run 'screen' on the Unix host I connect to,
>> which really needs a status line.  It can run with 24 lines, but it is much
>> more convenient to have 25, which my Plus has the room for.  I simply wouldn't
>> use a comm program, no matter how good it was in any other way, if it didn't
>> provide me the capability for 25 lines.

>Actually, screen size in the terminal has nothing to do with screen size on
>the computer. The (virtual) terminal could be any reasonable size, and its
>display is then mapped to the scrolling window of the program.

>So, even on a Mac Plus, you could have 2000 lines by 256 characters. You 
>just wouldn't be able to see much of it.

Well the point was that I need to be able to *see* 25 lines at a time.  And
certainly if I upgraded to a newer Mac with a larger screen, I'd want even
more than 25 lines.  This doesn't worry me though, since my next computer
will probably be a NeXT or a PowerPC machine of some sort ;-)

-- 
/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Doug Siebert                             | "I don't have to take this abuse |
| Internet:  dsiebert@isca.uiowa.edu       |  from you - I've got hundreds of |
| NeXTMail:  dsiebert@chop.isca.uiowa.edu  |  people waiting in line to abuse |
|     ICBM:  41d 39m 55s N, 91d 30m 43s W  |  me!"  Bill Murray, Ghostbusters |
\-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/