Talk:Computer terminal

message: The link to Green Screen no longer reaches directly thru to Green_Screen_Display. I'd work harder to fix this but I've forgotten my Wikipedia username.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.241.65 (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Green Screen gone ambiguous

message: This statement from the article makes no sense: "This class of terminals were later renamed dumb terminals, differentiating them from PCs running emulation software." Terminals have always been differentiated from PCs running emulation software, by actually being terminals.  I recognize that some people mistakenly use the term "dumb terminal" to refer to any computer terminal, but isn't that out of ignorance? --Serge 06:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement no longer appears in that form; the current version looks reasonable Tedickey (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This statement from the article makes no sense

message: I added citation-needed to the part of the article which states
that (interpretation by me):
# ncurses, terminfo, terminal emulators etc are buggy
# and so buggy that many applications have "little usability" (i.e. major problems)
# and all development effort goes into GUIs, so it will probably never be fixed
I use these kinds of applications heavily at work and at home,
and I don't recognize this description of reality at all
(my only major annoyance is colors, which tend to come in unreadable combinations by default).
Furthermore, I have never heard complaints like these raised before,
neither by users nor programmers.
JöG 15:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally see comments such as "buggy" from (a) people who don't know how to select a proper terminal description, or (b) people relating second-hand opinions Tedickey 19:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "little usability of many text-mode applications" 

message: The paragraph appears unbalanced, since it extends a fairly generic description with special mention of a tangentially-related commercial product.  If there are "some examples", this probably should be developed first into a general paragraph of their characteristics (contrasting against the existing paragraphs). Tedickey (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What about "thin terminals" (which seem to be merged here with thin client)?   Some of those aren't really graphical, since they're advertised as replacements for legacy character terminals Tedickey (talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

text: thanks - I think that going in that direction might help Tedickey (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Celio Technology Corporation 

message: The text as it is right now does not match my understanding.  It is true that a real dumb terminal has limited escape sequence processing (whether the cursor is addressable is one distinguishing feature often used) but terminals like VT100 and so on are not "smart".  That is reserved for the record-at-a-time terminals - those that receive a form to be edited and send the results back to the computer once the whole form has been completed.  General purpose terminals don't do this and need the smarts of the host computer for the entire editing procedure - move from one field to the next, show what has just been typed, and so on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minority Carrier (talk • contribs) 16:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction varies according to the source.  For something like this, more than one reliable source (illustrating the variation) would be useful. TEDickey (talk) 20:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  dumb vs smart 

message: There isn't enough discussion of different technologies, e.g. "typewriter-like" ribbon on paper, thermal, electrostatic, or video raster vs. vector.  There's no discussion of special-purpose terminals such as data-collection devices.  There's no discussion of such devices as remote-batch or RJE terminals.  There's no discussion of connectivity - channel-attached, modem-connected, etc.  I think the article could use work, but I'm not sure how to organize it. Peter Flass (talk) 22:36, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs work 

message: This should be brought clearly in the opener, I think... The diff between Computer in C.terminal should be brought clear at the start... Ben-Natan (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference from [[Computer]]?  

message: The following is unclear to me:
"Early terminals were inexpensive devices but very slow compared to punched cards or paper tape for input"
The following for example would be clearer (if it is what was meant):
Early terminals were inexpensive input-only devices and were very slow compared to punched card or paper tape devices.
Seipher (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather "Early terminals were inexpensive.  In contrast to punched card or paper tape, terminals were low-speed devices, capable of no more than 10-30 characters per second." TEDickey (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

text: By the way, the low speed applied whether for input or output.  There were actually phone modems handling 300 baud (less than 30 characters per second).  You might be able to find useful sources for this. TEDickey (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: 300 baud? What about 110 baud ? (which is not as (s)low as it could go) Pi314m (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

text: See my comment: 10-30 cps.  If you have a 100 baud modem (not terminal) to discuss, a reliable source for that aspect is a starting point for discussion TEDickey (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear wording 

message: Some products from Tesla CS should be mentioned. Text terminals with graphical mode.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.224.229 (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  tesla czechoslovakia 

message: The text about the "plans to build a video terminal for $15,000" that was described as "proved too ambitious" is available here Pi314m (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: $15,000 terminal

message: Currently a lot of information about various technologies used in terminals is located in #History. I believe that there should be a separate taxonomy section classifying the types of terminals and describing the various technologies used, with the history section limited to identifying specific terminals, their dates and their technologies. 13:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization of article 

message: A recent edit changed the short description from  to . However, most input/output devices are not terminals, e.g., tape drives, disk drives. How about ? 
--Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  With short descriptions, we have a situation where we are aiming to have a maximum of 40 characters. The driving reason is that the short description is displayed on the mobile access to the article in a search result. 65% of access to Wikipedia is now via mobile devices or tablets. So we have that objective to display a short description that is readable on the mobile device. Descriptions over 40 characters get chopped off. With your forbearance, I ask, "What would you consider as apt?" --Whiteguru (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   "Computer input/output device for users". 38 characters. Guy Harris (talk) 22:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it, at least given the conflict between accuracy and brevity. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Accuracy and brevity rules! Well done! --Whiteguru (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad the article is longer than 40 characters; those poor tablet and mobile device users will never get to see all our Brillian Prose (TM). --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: Shouldn't the article discuss speed in bits/second? Giving speed in characters/second makes it difficult to compare, e.g., the 5-level TTY 28 with the 7-level TTY 33, since the former must inject FIGS and LTRS to switch between digits and letters. Describing both as 10 CPS would create the false impression that they have the same performance. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed 

message: "Block-mode terminals", "Character-mode devices".  Sorry, that might seem obvious for the guy that wrote it, but means nothing to me. Ignacio.Agulló (talk) 00:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "Block-mode" and "character-mode" are explained in , but that comes after , which is the first place those terms are used.  Perhaps the History section needs to be moved after Modes.  (And perhaps we need to use the same terminology consistently, e.g. "XXX-mode" vs "XXX mode" and "XXX-mode" vs "XXX-oriented".) Guy Harris (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear VDU explanation 

message: Today, most PC telnet clients provide emulation of the most common terminal, the DEC VT100...
Uh, the VT-100 was not “the most common terminal.”  That honor would belong to the WYSE 60, which was installed in vast numbers in the years after its introduction.  Few VT-100s were used in installations that didn’t have a DEC mini.  I dimly recall one estimate that said for every VT-100 in use, at least 10 WYSE 60s were in use.
:216.152.18.132 (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not a misnomer, except perhaps in the fourth, non-standard, sense.  It may be an incorrect claim, however.  I'll ask for a citation and, if none shows up, turn it into "provide emulation of the DEC VT100...". Guy Harris (talk) 03:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misnomer?