From: bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm
Subject: Re: Smartcom II offer ?
Date: 2 Jan 93 11:59:04 EDT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Dec22.225014.7331@icaen.uiowa.edu>, dsiebert@icaen.uiowa.edu (Doug Siebert) writes:
> 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.  

OK, accept it then.

> You seemed to
> imply before that the only reason for this was because a VT102 has only 24
> lines.  

Well, that's the primary reason. I have yet to meet a VT102 with more than 24
lines.

> I stand by my "patently ridiculous" quote if the only reason that the
> program provides 24 lines is because of VT102 emulation 

Note that I never claimed this aspect of Smartcom II was a "feature." It is
just the way the program works currently. By assuming a 24 by 80 (or 132)
screen, certain parts of the programming were a little bit easier. If we add
to the requirements a need for more than 24 lines, then obviously the easier
programming has to go out the window in favor of programming that meets the
requirements.

> -- there are at least
> 1000 people using a VT100/102 emulation for every 1 person using a real VT102
> or VT100, 

I'd paint that ratio higher. It is probably closer to 10,000 to 1.

> and most of those 1000 have at least the option to size
> their screen differently.  

I take odds at the term "most" here. I've been using communications with a
VT102 for years. I've rarely run into any more than a handful of people
running more than 24 lines. Obviously, from responses here and in mail,
there are at least SOME people who have that option. 

> 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'm not so sure about VMS. From all the mail I've gotten, Unix certainly has
this capability. I was not aware that this was a standard Unix feature.

> 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.

Where can one obtain a copy of "vttest"? I've heard of this product before,
but I have never been able to obtain a copy of it. Can anyone help here?

>>> 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.  

Well, you were quite successful.

> 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.  

Part of the challenge in creating simple, easy to use communications software is
to MINIMIZE the number of user-configurable settings. Since communications
involves a remote host (whose characteristics are difficult to determine
without help from the user), some settings are absolutely necessary. Others
are handy. Still others are occassionally useful, but hard to explain. Often,
there's a tradeoff in what appears to be important and what can be reasonably
explained. Without this tradeoff, ever communications program would look
like White Knight with jillions of settings.

You do have a point. My whole purpose in answering this thread about
expanded screen size in emulation is to help determine the importance of
this feature in the user community. Once we have that information, we can
better judge the tradeoff. Based on the response, I'd recommend this feature
be added on the next round of enhancements.

> 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 :-)

Agreed. But it takes accurate user information to add the right mix of 
non-standard elements, right? You input has already helped to correct our
market information.

>>> 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 ;-)

My point is that the emulation size of Smartcom II is already completely
independant of the displayed size. That aspect has already been coded for
several years.

-- 
Bill Coleman, AA4LR                ! CIS: 76067,2327    AppleLink: D1958
Principal Software Engineer        ! Packet Radio: AA4LR @ W4QO
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc. ! UUCP: uunet!hayes!bcoleman
POB 105203 Atlanta, GA 30348 USA   ! Internet: bcoleman%hayes@uunet.uu.net
Disclaimer: "My employer doesn't pay me to have opinions."
Quote: "The same light shines on vineyards that makes deserts." -Steve Hackett.

Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm