Re: VT100's

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tapley, Mark via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> > On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Paul Koning  wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 1, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk <
> cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Tapley, Mark via cctalk
> >>> ...I have to say my favorite VT-100-alike is a Rainbow. One box (plus
> monitor plus the dreaded LK-201), three functions in the collection: VT-100
> emulation (not perfect but not bad), CPM-80/86 (is that one or two
> functions?), MS-DOS 3.11b.
> >>
> >> I have only recently learned of the built-in VT100 emulation.  I'm
> >> curious how it's "not perfect".
> >
> > I don't know that particular one.  But a possible answer would be:
> because the VT100 had a bunch of strange corner cases that were not
> documented and not necessarily well understood.
> >
> > DEC created an internal standard for terminal behavior; that
> specification was extremely detailed and very well written.  It became the
> functional specification for the VT200 series.  I used it to write the
> terminal emulator for RSTS on the Pro.  It was understood at the time that
> this spec was close to VT100 behavior (apart from 8 bit characters instead
> of 7) but not exactly that, and deliberately so.
> >
> > Similar things have happened in other places.  There is DDCMP, and "DMC
> compatibility mode" which is best described as "DDCMP with certain bugs".
> It hard to find a reasonable description of the latter.  If you want to do
> DDCMP, you're best off implementing the spec (which is easy) but if you do,
> it won't work 100% with the "high speed" variant of the DMC-11.
> >
> >   paul
>
> I can’t remember the exact VT-100 / Rainbow differences. I do remember
> seeing a description (usenet-post kind of thing, not an official document)
> that detailed them, and deciding the Rainbow emulation was “good enough”
> for my purposes. If I can find that document (later this week) I’ll try to
> post or re-post it, but I’m submerged by $work at the moment. If someone
> else comes up with it before me, I’ll be glad!


The TRM had a list of differences in it. They were both highly esoteric and
generally not an issue for anything I ever ran on my Rainbow for the decade
or so I used it. I don't think it mentioned DDCMP though.

Warner

Re: VT100's

[Tapley, Mark via cctalk]

> On Oct 1, 2018, at 1:55 PM, Paul Koning  wrote:
> 
>> On Oct 1, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk  
>> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Tapley, Mark via cctalk
>>> ...I have to say my favorite VT-100-alike is a Rainbow. One box (plus 
>>> monitor plus the dreaded LK-201), three functions in the collection: VT-100 
>>> emulation (not perfect but not bad), CPM-80/86 (is that one or two 
>>> functions?), MS-DOS 3.11b.
>> 
>> I have only recently learned of the built-in VT100 emulation.  I'm
>> curious how it's "not perfect".
> 
> I don't know that particular one.  But a possible answer would be: because 
> the VT100 had a bunch of strange corner cases that were not documented and 
> not necessarily well understood.
> 
> DEC created an internal standard for terminal behavior; that specification 
> was extremely detailed and very well written.  It became the functional 
> specification for the VT200 series.  I used it to write the terminal emulator 
> for RSTS on the Pro.  It was understood at the time that this spec was close 
> to VT100 behavior (apart from 8 bit characters instead of 7) but not exactly 
> that, and deliberately so.
> 
> Similar things have happened in other places.  There is DDCMP, and "DMC 
> compatibility mode" which is best described as "DDCMP with certain bugs".  It 
> hard to find a reasonable description of the latter.  If you want to do 
> DDCMP, you're best off implementing the spec (which is easy) but if you do, 
> it won't work 100% with the "high speed" variant of the DMC-11.
> 
>   paul

I can’t remember the exact VT-100 / Rainbow differences. I do remember seeing a 
description (usenet-post kind of thing, not an official document) that detailed 
them, and deciding the Rainbow emulation was “good enough” for my purposes. If 
I can find that document (later this week) I’ll try to post or re-post it, but 
I’m submerged by $work at the moment. If someone else comes up with it before 
me, I’ll be glad!
- Mark

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Oct 1, 2018, at 2:46 PM, Ethan Dicks via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Tapley, Mark via cctalk
>  wrote:
>>I have more desire to own systems to play on than I have space or 
>> time.
> 
> True for most of us, I suspect.
> 
>>Addressing the former, I have to say my favorite VT-100-alike is a 
>> Rainbow. One box (plus monitor plus the dreaded LK-201), three functions in 
>> the collection: VT-100 emulation (not perfect but not bad), CPM-80/86 (is 
>> that one or two functions?), MS-DOS 3.11b.
> 
> I have only recently learned of the built-in VT100 emulation.  I'm
> curious how it's "not perfect".

I don't know that particular one.  But a possible answer would be: because the 
VT100 had a bunch of strange corner cases that were not documented and not 
necessarily well understood.

DEC created an internal standard for terminal behavior; that specification was 
extremely detailed and very well written.  It became the functional 
specification for the VT200 series.  I used it to write the terminal emulator 
for RSTS on the Pro.  It was understood at the time that this spec was close to 
VT100 behavior (apart from 8 bit characters instead of 7) but not exactly that, 
and deliberately so.

Similar things have happened in other places.  There is DDCMP, and "DMC 
compatibility mode" which is best described as "DDCMP with certain bugs".  It 
hard to find a reasonable description of the latter.  If you want to do DDCMP, 
you're best off implementing the spec (which is easy) but if you do, it won't 
work 100% with the "high speed" variant of the DMC-11.

paul

Re: VT100's

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Zane Healy via cctalk
 wrote:
>
>> On Sep 7, 2018, at 10:55 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk  
>> wrote:
>>
>> TI made a clamshell portable VT220-compatible terminal with an LCD screen,
>> the Travelmate LT220.  It's very nice, the LCD is high-contrast (but no
>> backlight) and it even has a built in 2400bps modem.  I believe it can run
>> off of a battery as well.  It's very handy.
>>
>> There's a picture of one near the bottom of this page:
>> http://ummr.altervista.org/sistemi_x86.htm 
>> 
>>
>> - Josh
>
> That’s an interesting terminal.  Totally pointless for me, but it would be 
> cool.

I have a Zenith ZFL-181-93 that I treat like the LT220 - it boots to
DOS 3.3 off of 3.5" 720K floppy and the only application on it is
Kermit.  It makes a nice portable terminal that way that if I ever got
around to it, I could replace the stack of NiCd C-cells and run off
battery power, but it works fine from wall power.

I think it would be cool to have an LCD dumb terminal but an old 8088
LCD laptop that runs DOS and Kermit is the next best thing.  One thing
I can do with the Zenith is run a Xircom Pocket Ethernet adapter off
the printer port and (with the right packet driver shim) do Kermit
over TCP/IP, not just over serial.  That's very nice in a closed
environment where one can tolerate using telnet.

-ethan

Re: VT100's

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:16 PM, Tapley, Mark via cctalk
 wrote:
> I have more desire to own systems to play on than I have space or 
> time.

True for most of us, I suspect.

> Addressing the former, I have to say my favorite VT-100-alike is a 
> Rainbow. One box (plus monitor plus the dreaded LK-201), three functions in 
> the collection: VT-100 emulation (not perfect but not bad), CPM-80/86 (is 
> that one or two functions?), MS-DOS 3.11b.

I have only recently learned of the built-in VT100 emulation.  I'm
curious how it's "not perfect".

> Having a Rainbow has pretty much forestalled any desire to get a 
> “real” VT-100 for me.

I've had real VT-100s (VT-101s, VT102s...) for quite some time, but
because of partial compatibility with other systems (RX50s along with
memory map differences) I was never big on running a Rainbow.  These
days, though, I'm interested in them as CP/M boxes more than running
DOS, just because it's trivial to set up a white box to run DOS but
there aren't that many kinds of CP/M machines after the S-100 era.

So a single box that is itself a decent VT-100 and runs CP/M is
suddenly worth some desk space.

And because it's my focus, the first thing I want to run on any CP/M
box is going to be text adventures (Infocom and Scott Adams for
certain).

-ethan

P.S. - and the same line of reasoning has the VT-180 on my radar but
I've never seen one go by close enough or cheap enough to jump on.

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 09/08/2018 03:57 PM, Warner Losh wrote:

> My first TTY was the DECwriter II. My first terminal was a Beehive
> BH100. I hacked together some TECO to support it on a local
> vi/emacs/EDT-like visual mode editor... IIRC, the escape sequences were
> put into specific numbered registers as TECO macros. A poor man's curses
> in the mid 70's I thought it was super cool until I discovered emacs
> at school on our 11/750...
>

Before I got real disks on my MITS box, I used a Techtran dual-deck
paper tape simulator as storage (one deck read-only, the other
read/write and block searchable) and the Beehive as a rudimentary word
processor.  Read up a page, edit offline, and then hit "Transmit".

Early CPT word processors worked in a similar manner.

IIRC, the Super Bee used an 8008 and a whole mess of shift registers for
storage.

--Chuck

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 12:06 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk 
wrote:

> On 09/08/2018 10:07 AM, John Many Jars via cctalk wrote:
> > I miss my old Televideo 910.  I wonder if Steve Albany stole it?
> >
> > At ASU, when I was a kid pulling DECwriter printers out the bin to check
> > for printouts in half-duplex, they had something called an Infoton.  It
> was
> > uppercase only and had the worst keyboard, ever.  It felt like typing on
> a
> > wet sponge.
>
> Heck, I miss my Beehive Super Bees.
>

My first TTY was the DECwriter II. My first terminal was a Beehive BH100. I
hacked together some TECO to support it on a local vi/emacs/EDT-like visual
mode editor... IIRC, the escape sequences were put into specific numbered
registers as TECO macros. A poor man's curses in the mid 70's I thought
it was super cool until I discovered emacs at school on our 11/750...

Warner

>

Re: VT100's

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 10:55 PM, Josh Dersch via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> TI made a clamshell portable VT220-compatible terminal with an LCD screen,
> the Travelmate LT220.  It's very nice, the LCD is high-contrast (but no
> backlight) and it even has a built in 2400bps modem.  I believe it can run
> off of a battery as well.  It's very handy.
> 
> There's a picture of one near the bottom of this page:
> http://ummr.altervista.org/sistemi_x86.htm 
> 
> 
> - Josh

That’s an interesting terminal.  Totally pointless for me, but it would be cool.

Zane

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

On 09/08/2018 10:07 AM, John Many Jars via cctalk wrote:
> I miss my old Televideo 910.  I wonder if Steve Albany stole it?
> 
> At ASU, when I was a kid pulling DECwriter printers out the bin to check
> for printouts in half-duplex, they had something called an Infoton.  It was
> uppercase only and had the worst keyboard, ever.  It felt like typing on a
> wet sponge.

Heck, I miss my Beehive Super Bees.

--Chuck

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Ed Sharpe via cctalk]

Infotrons!   and the old  UPPER  CASE ONLY  BEEHIVES!


I  remember those and also  the old  TEC terminals
 
A recent  TEC   endowment to the museum was  of all these multi colored  books  
TEC  put out on all their  terminal lines.   I need  to see   where  they  may 
already  be  scanned.. in   not  can  go on the someday to be scanned   stack.
 
checking bitsavers http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/tec/   I  see  there are    
some  listed so maybe  not all that  unusual...  will see  what   we have  they 
  don't.
 
We  had a  TEC  terminal  in the  computer  room  at  Computer Exchange at  one 
 time wish I had  kept it.
 
there   is  one  model upper  case beehive  I  need  for a   display if anyone  
still has  some   drop me  a  line email offlist  thx  ed#  www.smecc.org
 
In a message dated 9/8/2018 10:07:26 AM US Mountain Standard Time, 
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

 
I miss my old Televideo 910. I wonder if Steve Albany stole it?


At ASU, when I was a kid pulling DECwriter printers out the bin to check
for printouts in half-duplex, they had something called an Infoton. It was
uppercase only and had the worst keyboard, ever. It felt like typing on a
wet sponge.

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[John Many Jars via cctalk]

I miss my old Televideo 910.  I wonder if Steve Albany stole it?

At ASU, when I was a kid pulling DECwriter printers out the bin to check
for printouts in half-duplex, they had something called an Infoton.  It was
uppercase only and had the worst keyboard, ever.  It felt like typing on a
wet sponge.

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Liam Proven via cctalk]

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 21:08, Al Kossow via cctalk  wrote:
>
> I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05, 20, and 71t
> under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal

Oddly, since others are commenting, this whole site is inaccessible
for me in Prague, both yesterday and today.

«
This site can’t be reached

bitsavers.org took too long to respond.

Search Google for bitsavers org pdf dec terminal

ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT
»

I wanna see the piccies! :'(


-- 
Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Re: VT100's

[Christian Corti via cctalk]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Paul Koning wrote:
The work of a VT100 is quite a lot more complex than that of a VT52 
(many more screen operations, and more complex control sequence 
parsing).  With the hardware technology available at the time, it was a 
pretty tough job.  Does the VT100 have a microprocessor? It may predate 
those.  In hardwired 7400 series logic, it isn't an easy job.


Yes, the V100 has an Intel 8080, the stripped-down V101 has an Intel 8085.

Christian

Re: VT100's

[Josh Dersch via cctalk]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Tony Duell via cctalk  wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk
>  wrote:
> > I am building my own VT100 terminal (FPGA project), and it will be
> > laptop-shape :P
>
> Trend Data System (the company that made some very nice paper tape readers
> made/sold such a terminal many years ago. There were at least 2 versions,
> one
> did 5 bit ('Baudot', 'Murray' (although it's actually neither),
> ITA2..), the other was
> a VT100-a-like. The display was LCD which could be folded over the keyboard
> when not in use. It needed an external 12V supply (I don't think there was
> ever an internal battery version).
>
> It was very close to a real VT100, even the setup options were identical.
>
> -tony
>

TI made a clamshell portable VT220-compatible terminal with an LCD screen,
the Travelmate LT220.  It's very nice, the LCD is high-contrast (but no
backlight) and it even has a built in 2400bps modem.  I believe it can run
off of a battery as well.  It's very handy.

There's a picture of one near the bottom of this page:
http://ummr.altervista.org/sistemi_x86.htm

- Josh

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Ed Sharpe via cctalk]

had a  tectronix   terminal like this  also  had a  slide out  drawer  with 
many  small gold  plated  cards  looked  like the  earliest    tecx  made  
terminal  for graphics I had  ever  seen.   was  heavy  very heavy and very 
long  with  I still had  it...  it  was   back in the mid  80s  I  sold  it.

 
ed #  
 
 
In a message dated 9/7/2018 6:52:54 PM US Mountain Standard Time, 
cctalk@classiccmp.org writes:

 
On 09/07/2018 02:55 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:

> That’s it! The terminal I had was definitely the one in this picture:
>
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt02/vt02_1.jpg
>
>
The display is actually a Tektronix 611 direct-view storage 
tube.

Jon

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Jon Elson via cctalk]

On 09/07/2018 02:55 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:

That’s it! The terminal I had was definitely the one in this picture:

http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt02/vt02_1.jpg


The display is actually a Tektronix 611 direct-view storage 
tube.


Jon

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 4:35 PM, Warner Losh  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:33 PM Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk 
> mailto:cctalk@classiccmp.org>> wrote:
> I also looked at the keyboards on my Symbolics machines, and where I’d like 
> to have the control key is the “rubout” key.  But given that there are no 
> fewer than 5 “shift” keys on the Symbolics keyboard (hyper, super, meta, 
> control, shift…I can’t recall at the moment if symbol is also a “shift” key), 
> it makes a bit of sense to have them all near each other.  ;-)
> 
> I think you forgot the "coke bottle" key :)
> 
> http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/space-cadet-keyboard.html 
> 

Yea, I don’t have a space cadet keyboard.  I have new and old Symbolics 
keyboards.  The “new” one is the one pictured on the referenced link.

TTFN - Guy

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:33 PM Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> I also looked at the keyboards on my Symbolics machines, and where I’d
> like to have the control key is the “rubout” key.  But given that there are
> no fewer than 5 “shift” keys on the Symbolics keyboard (hyper, super, meta,
> control, shift…I can’t recall at the moment if symbol is also a “shift”
> key), it makes a bit of sense to have them all near each other.  ;-)
>

I think you forgot the "coke bottle" key :)

http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/space-cadet-keyboard.html

Warner

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 4:15 PM, Frank McConnell via cctalk 
>  wrote:
> 
> On Sep 7, 2018, at 12:00, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys
> 
> And CAPS LOCK in the home row to the left of the A key.  The VT220 made it 
> w-i-d-e.  Can we now fix the blame for the two of the three worst ideas in 
> computer keyboard design on d|i|g|i|t|a|l?  (#3 would be sending CONTROL to 
> live in the spacebar row and I think maybe we need to blame IBM for that.)
> 

No, there were terminals that had a (small) control key down near the space bar 
long before IBM did it with the PC.  I can’t recall which at the moment (but I 
recall having to deal with them in the mid-to-late 70’s).

I also looked at the keyboards on my Symbolics machines, and where I’d like to 
have the control key is the “rubout” key.  But given that there are no fewer 
than 5 “shift” keys on the Symbolics keyboard (hyper, super, meta, control, 
shift…I can’t recall at the moment if symbol is also a “shift” key), it makes a 
bit of sense to have them all near each other.  ;-)

TTFN - Guy

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Warner Losh via cctalk]

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:16 PM Frank McConnell via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 12:00, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> > interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys
>
> And CAPS LOCK in the home row to the left of the A key.  The VT220 made it
> w-i-d-e.  Can we now fix the blame for the two of the three worst ideas in
> computer keyboard design on d|i|g|i|t|a|l?  (#3 would be sending CONTROL to
> live in the spacebar row and I think maybe we need to blame IBM for that.)
>

Yes. I had an old DEC Rainbow... For years I used it as a terminal, but I
hacked things to swap the CAPS LOCK and CONTROL keys. But the control key
was still to the left of the CAPS LOCK key. It was the IBM PC keyboard that
moved the control key below the Shift key. Most other terminals before then
didn't do that :(

Warner

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Frank McConnell via cctalk]

On Sep 7, 2018, at 12:00, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys

And CAPS LOCK in the home row to the left of the A key.  The VT220 made it 
w-i-d-e.  Can we now fix the blame for the two of the three worst ideas in 
computer keyboard design on d|i|g|i|t|a|l?  (#3 would be sending CONTROL to 
live in the spacebar row and I think maybe we need to blame IBM for that.)

-Frank McConnell

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Mark J. Blair via cctalk]

That’s it! The terminal I had was definitely the one in this picture:

http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal/vt02/vt02_1.jpg

--
Mark J. Blair 
http://www.nf6x.net

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 2:57 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05, 20, and 71t
> under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal

Nice, working photos of a VT20.  I'd forgotten the oddball keys on the side.

In the VT71 picture, you can see the UDKs -- the blank keycaps in the top row.  
Above them are handwritten labels on that piece of cardboard, indicating what 
each one does (regular and shifted, two macros per key).  There are some 
obvious newspaper specific functions, like "Wire dir sports" or "head fit" 
(i.e., take the current story headline and report how wide it is, to see if it 
fits in the columns allowed for it).

The VT72 document has a description of the display controller, so if VT71/72 
software ever materializes that can be used to teach SIMH how to emulate the 
terminal.

paul

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Al Kossow

> I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05

Those useable for the CHWiki (with credit, of course)?

Oddly enough, I just did the article on the VT05 about a week ago!

Noel

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys

On 9/7/18 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05, 20, and 71t
> under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal
> 

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

I just put up some pictures of the vt02, 05, 20, and 71t
under http://bitsavers.org/pdf/dec/terminal


On 9/7/18 10:45 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:
> Thanks for digging that up! I had never managed to google up any details 
> before. 
> 
> --
> Mark J. Blair 
> http://www.nf6x.net
> 

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Mark J. Blair via cctalk]

Thanks for digging that up! I had never managed to google up any details 
before. 

--
Mark J. Blair 
http://www.nf6x.net

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/7/18 10:00 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:

> The VT02 was apparently a PDP-8 device
> 
> https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1185657/m2/1/high_res_d/6649931.pdf
> 

This was hard to find, because web searches turn up hundreds of hits from some 
dufus that mistyped VT02 instead of VT52
in a linux terminal emulation package.

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/7/18 9:09 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:

> The display was a fully enclosed standalone unit, not a bare chassis. It sat 
> on top of the bottom chassis of the terminal and then had another cover 
> fitted over it.
> 
> It had screen burn which indicated its use as part of a text terminal, but I 
> don't know if the character generation was originally performed in the bottom 
> chassis or by external equipment. The small DEC wire wrap backplane in the 
> bottom chassis didn't seem big enough to implement all of that with flip 
> chips. Maybe the backplane was just used for keyboard interface, and 
> character generation was done by equipment external to the terminal?
> 

The VT02 was apparently a PDP-8 device

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1185657/m2/1/high_res_d/6649931.pdf

Thus the  FY  1969 equipment  increment  was procured  from  DEC
and consisted  of one  KAIO Processor, one PDP-8 Computer  (4K memory),
4 VT02 Terminals, plus controllers, teleprinters, and  cables for  a total of
$167,042.  For  FY  1970, the  plan  called  for  additional  memory  
capability,
disk packs, and additional inputting terminals for a total  of $189,000.

The only thing we have in the archive apparently are four proof negatives, 
unless the
controller had a different name.

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Mark J. Blair via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 8:41 AM, Bob Rosenbloom via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> The display was most likely a Tektronix 611. DEC used them with their point 
> plot display systems like the VC8E.

I am pretty sure that the display was a 611 in its vertical configuration:

http://w140.com/tekwiki/wiki/611

The display was a fully enclosed standalone unit, not a bare chassis. It sat on 
top of the bottom chassis of the terminal and then had another cover fitted 
over it.

It had screen burn which indicated its use as part of a text terminal, but I 
don't know if the character generation was originally performed in the bottom 
chassis or by external equipment. The small DEC wire wrap backplane in the 
bottom chassis didn't seem big enough to implement all of that with flip chips. 
Maybe the backplane was just used for keyboard interface, and character 
generation was done by equipment external to the terminal?

-- 
Mark J. Blair 
http://www.nf6x.net/

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Norman Jaffe via cctalk]

Speaking of oddball terminals, does anyone have details on Cybernex APL-100 
terminals? 
I acquired one a couple of years ago and have had no luck locating 
documentation for them. 

From: "cctalk"  
To: "cctalk"  
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 8:41:23 AM 
Subject: Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's) 

On 9/6/2018 10:38 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: 
> A long time ago, I had the incomplete remnants of an oddball terminal which I 
> retrieved from a junk pile at a small, obscure school in Pasadena. I'll try 
> to describe it as best I can, based on old memory. I could have sworn that it 
> had a dataplate label identifying it as a DEC VT02, but that could be way off 
> the mark. 
> 
> It was built around a Tektronix vector storage display, oriented in portrait 
> mode. It had quite a bit of screen burn from its long life displaying text. I 
> don't recall the model number of the display, but I might recognize one if I 
> saw it. It was quite long, making the whole terminal quite long. It had X, Y 
> and Z BNC inputs, and it had a neat test mode that drew a spiral on the 
> screen. 
> 
> The display sat on top of a long chassis with a keyboard at one end, a small 
> Flip Chip backplane around the middle, and a power supply (probably linear, 
> IIRC) at the rear end. I don't think that the Flip Chip boards were still in 
> it when I got it, but it came along with a small box of spare Flip Chips. 
> 
> After setting the big Tektronix display on top of the lower chassis, there 
> was a long U-shaped sheet metal cover that sat over the top and covered the 
> display, making it look somewhat like a single device rather than a stack of 
> two things. The lower chassis and the top cover were painted approximately 
> white as I recall. 
> 
> I never did anything interesting with the display other than occasionally 
> driving it with signal generators, and I got rid of the whole pile a long, 
> long time ago. 
> 
> Does that old beast sound remotely familiar to anybody here? How hard should 
> I kick myself for not keeping it? 
> 
The display was most likely a Tektronix 611. DEC used them with their 
point plot display systems like the VC8E. 


Bob 

-- 
Vintage computers and electronics 
www.dvq.com 
www.tekmuseum.com 
www.decmuseum.org 

Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Bob Rosenbloom via cctalk]

On 9/6/2018 10:38 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote:

A long time ago, I had the incomplete remnants of an oddball terminal which I 
retrieved from a junk pile at a small, obscure school in Pasadena. I'll try to 
describe it as best I can, based on old memory. I could have sworn that it had 
a dataplate label identifying it as a DEC VT02, but that could be way off the 
mark.

It was built around a Tektronix vector storage display, oriented in portrait 
mode. It had quite a bit of screen burn from its long life displaying text. I 
don't recall the model number of the display, but I might recognize one if I 
saw it. It was quite long, making the whole terminal quite long. It had X, Y 
and Z BNC inputs, and it had a neat test mode that drew a spiral on the screen.

The display sat on top of a long chassis with a keyboard at one end, a small 
Flip Chip backplane around the middle, and a power supply (probably linear, 
IIRC) at the rear end. I don't think that the Flip Chip boards were still in it 
when I got it, but it came along with a small box of spare Flip Chips.

After setting the big Tektronix display on top of the lower chassis, there was 
a long U-shaped sheet metal cover that sat over the top and covered the 
display, making it look somewhat like a single device rather than a stack of 
two things. The lower chassis and the top cover were painted approximately 
white as I recall.

I never did anything interesting with the display other than occasionally 
driving it with signal generators, and I got rid of the whole pile a long, long 
time ago.

Does that old beast sound remotely familiar to anybody here? How hard should I 
kick myself for not keeping it?

The display was most likely a Tektronix 611. DEC used them with their 
point plot display systems like the VC8E.



Bob

--
Vintage computers and electronics
www.dvq.com
www.tekmuseum.com
www.decmuseum.org

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 6:20 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/6/18 2:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:
> 
>> If you bought a bought a machine from DEC, you probably needed DEC terminals
>> or clones of them to get the best from it.  However, the same probably 
>> applied
>> to other manufacturers.
> 
> DEC's keyboard editors didn't talk anything other than VT52 or VT100 protocols
> and you needed their keypad for KED to work.
> 
> Things like Curses and Termcap weren't a concept people groked at the time.

True.  DEC's approach was standards: as soon as the idea appeared, adopt it 
(ANSI escapes) throughout the product line, then all the software has only a 
single API it needs to understand.

paul

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Rick Murphy via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 9/6/2018 1:15 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:09 PM, allison via cctalk  wrote:
>>> Mostly about screen memory which back then was small and not cheap.
>> True.  Did the VT05 use core memory for that?  I vaguely remember it did.
> 
> The VT05 used a shift register bank for the screen memory. This caused delays 
> when scrolling as the content of the shift register had to be basically 
> shifted up, thus requiring fill characters after every linefeed.

Oh yes, VT05 fill, RSTS supports that (or at least in earlier versions).  
That's fill after LF rather than the fill after CR needed by older hard-copy 
terminals (including the much despised LA30s).

VT05 was 2400 baud max, if I remember right.  9600 was mind-boggling when I 
first saw it.

paul

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 7, 2018, at 8:46 AM, Noel Chiappa via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>> From: Paul Koning
> 
>> inside are a whole pile of boards, all single-sided etch with many
>> hundreds of jumpers to compensate for not being two-sided. Not cheap,
>> presumably
> 
> If memory serves, didn't the VT52 also have single-sided boards with a whole
> bunch of jumper wires? Something relatively common, anyway, if not the VT52 -
> I clearly remember the masses of jumpers on something, and Tech Sq had scads
> of VT52's (to the point where VT100's were not that common when they did show
> up, we were already full up).
> 
> Presumably, with automated placing machines, the jumpers were cheaper than a
> large double-sided board (the VT52's boards were huge)? I'm assuming _someone_
> did the math (including the amortization of the placing machine, which would
> take longer to complete such a board).

I don't remember the VT52 board, but you may well be right.  The obvious 
advantage of single sided boards is that it avoids plated through holes.  I 
once did a two-sided board without plated through holes (at the U of Illinois 
-- the board shop didn't know how) but that wasn't reasonable technology for 
serious work because you have to solder both sides then.

The VT61/t stood out to me because it has so much stuff in it.  I forgot how 
many boards, but it was way more than the VT52 (which has just one, I think).  
No surprise, the VT61/t has local editing / forms processing capability with 
block mode transmission both ways.  In one Typeset-11 application you'd edit a 
screen full of text locally and send it back when done; in the other you'd fill 
in a classified ad order form and send that.  The VT71 also had local text 
editing but there it's a whole file, with local scrolling and search, line 
wrap, and macros ("User Defined Keys", UDK, tied to a row of blank keycaps that 
the customer would label).

paul

Re: VT100's

[Tony Duell via cctalk]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk
 wrote:
> I am building my own VT100 terminal (FPGA project), and it will be
> laptop-shape :P

Trend Data System (the company that made some very nice paper tape readers
made/sold such a terminal many years ago. There were at least 2 versions, one
did 5 bit ('Baudot', 'Murray' (although it's actually neither),
ITA2..), the other was
a VT100-a-like. The display was LCD which could be folded over the keyboard
when not in use. It needed an external 12V supply (I don't think there was
ever an internal battery version).

It was very close to a real VT100, even the setup options were identical.

-tony

Re: VT100's

[Noel Chiappa via cctalk]

> From: Paul Koning

> inside are a whole pile of boards, all single-sided etch with many
> hundreds of jumpers to compensate for not being two-sided. Not cheap,
> presumably

If memory serves, didn't the VT52 also have single-sided boards with a whole
bunch of jumper wires? Something relatively common, anyway, if not the VT52 -
I clearly remember the masses of jumpers on something, and Tech Sq had scads
of VT52's (to the point where VT100's were not that common when they did show
up, we were already full up).

Presumably, with automated placing machines, the jumpers were cheaper than a
large double-sided board (the VT52's boards were huge)? I'm assuming _someone_
did the math (including the amortization of the placing machine, which would
take longer to complete such a board).

> From: Al Kossow

> The biggest hardware innovation was smooth vertical scrolling
> ...
> I've never liked the feature

IIRC, we generally turned it off because it couldn't keep up at 9600 baud.

Noel

Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's)

[Mark J. Blair via cctalk]

A long time ago, I had the incomplete remnants of an oddball terminal which I 
retrieved from a junk pile at a small, obscure school in Pasadena. I'll try to 
describe it as best I can, based on old memory. I could have sworn that it had 
a dataplate label identifying it as a DEC VT02, but that could be way off the 
mark.

It was built around a Tektronix vector storage display, oriented in portrait 
mode. It had quite a bit of screen burn from its long life displaying text. I 
don't recall the model number of the display, but I might recognize one if I 
saw it. It was quite long, making the whole terminal quite long. It had X, Y 
and Z BNC inputs, and it had a neat test mode that drew a spiral on the screen.

The display sat on top of a long chassis with a keyboard at one end, a small 
Flip Chip backplane around the middle, and a power supply (probably linear, 
IIRC) at the rear end. I don't think that the Flip Chip boards were still in it 
when I got it, but it came along with a small box of spare Flip Chips.

After setting the big Tektronix display on top of the lower chassis, there was 
a long U-shaped sheet metal cover that sat over the top and covered the 
display, making it look somewhat like a single device rather than a stack of 
two things. The lower chassis and the top cover were painted approximately 
white as I recall.

I never did anything interesting with the display other than occasionally 
driving it with signal generators, and I got rid of the whole pile a long, long 
time ago.

Does that old beast sound remotely familiar to anybody here? How hard should I 
kick myself for not keeping it?

-- 
Mark J. Blair, NF6X 
http://www.nf6x.net/

Re: VT100's

[Glen Slick via cctalk]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Personally I prefer the VT420’s, though I’d love a VT340/340+ or VT525.
>

If you really want color, sure a VT525 works for that. But getting a
crisp display on an LCD monitor might take some trial and error before
you find one with acceptable results. Might have better results with a
CRT after some trial and error. If you want crisp text and are fine
with a monochrome display, a VT520 might be a better option. But then
of course you have to find one that still has a CRT that hasn't been
burned from years of use. Personally I use my VT520 over my VT525 if I
have to choose which one to pull out and set up.

Re: VT100's

[Rick Murphy via cctalk]

On 9/6/2018 1:15 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:09 PM, allison via cctalk  
wrote:

Mostly about screen memory which back then was small and not cheap.

True.  Did the VT05 use core memory for that?  I vaguely remember it did.


The VT05 used a shift register bank for the screen memory. This caused 
delays when scrolling as the content of the shift register had to be 
basically shifted up, thus requiring fill characters after every linefeed.


Still, one of the most gorgeous video terminals ever. :)
    -Rick

Re: VT100's

[Guy Dunphy via cctalk]

Heh, another Guy. Who likes short keyboards, same as me. I refuse to use 
anything
but 10keyless keyboards, since I object to the extra distance between mouse at 
right
and the alpha key area. I never use the numeric pad if it's there.

Guy



At 09:28 AM 6/09/2018 -0700, you wrote:
>My biggest complaint with DEC terminals (and clones) that came after the VT100
>(such as the VT220/VT320/etc) is that the terminals are nice and small but the
>keyboards are *huge* (almost twice the width of the terminal itself).
>
>I like having a keyboard that matches the size of the terminal and the VT100 is
>along those lines.
>
>It is also the same complaint that I have with IBM 3178/9 terminals (e.g. 
>connect
>to IBM 370 mainframes), where the terminal is relatively small but the 
>keyboard is
>significantly wider (being a derivative of the IBM PC/AT keyboard) and IMHO
>would have been far better if IBM had left off the number pad.
>
>TTFN - Guy

Re: VT100's

[Bob Smith via cctalk]

My recollections, having worked for Stockebra in the comm group when
he started the 50.
These are all recollections, from my time working at DEC, no looking
at history books, no interweb tube alta vista quesries.

50 was a quite brilliant limited capability terminal, that could
replace the OEM'd VTs that were are at the time.
It was supposed to offer a thermal printer iirc, but that got pushed to 52.
52 was a reengineered/recpacked more easily manufactured unit.
Both were relative light compared to the other bulky ones that were
more sleek and lots heavier.
WE could sling a 50/52 around from lab to lab with TTY connections,
RS232 connections, and they just worked when we hooked them up.
We used a 52 as the base for the VT78 - better psu in the 52 is what I
recall for that decision.
The 100 models were - at the time - like something out of scifi, and
something like the Heath product.
Follow on models were even more scifi and fantastic.
So, a little geezing a tiny bit of tech, and just anecdotal rememberance.
I like the 220/240 models me self.
bb
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 7:24 PM Steve Malikoff via cctalk
 wrote:
>
> Will said
> >> Compared to many of the others available at the time, it seemed to me to 
> >> be:
> >>
> >> 1.  expensive
> >
> > Keep in mind that this is largely irrelevant. Terminals were often
> > used as bargaining chips when large systems were purchased. Salesmen
> > could "throw in" some number of terminals with a system, in order to
> > make a sale. If a business was being hard-nosed about the sale of
> > potential large VAX system, the salesmen could perhaps "sweeten" the
> > deal with ten or twenty bonus VT100s, free. All the profit was in the
> > CPUs, or more importantly, in the disk and tape farms (or to be really
> > fair about this, the service).
>
>
> Along that line, here is a page from a DEC sales catalog offering VT52's with 
> "It's cheaper by the 4-pack":
> http://www.surfacezero.com/g503/data/500/VT52_4-pack.jpg
>
> Steve
>

Re: VT100's

[Steve Malikoff via cctalk]

Will said
>> Compared to many of the others available at the time, it seemed to me to be:
>>
>> 1.  expensive
>
> Keep in mind that this is largely irrelevant. Terminals were often
> used as bargaining chips when large systems were purchased. Salesmen
> could "throw in" some number of terminals with a system, in order to
> make a sale. If a business was being hard-nosed about the sale of
> potential large VAX system, the salesmen could perhaps "sweeten" the
> deal with ten or twenty bonus VT100s, free. All the profit was in the
> CPUs, or more importantly, in the disk and tape farms (or to be really
> fair about this, the service).


Along that line, here is a page from a DEC sales catalog offering VT52's with 
"It's cheaper by the 4-pack":
http://www.surfacezero.com/g503/data/500/VT52_4-pack.jpg

Steve

Re: VT100's

[William Donzelli via cctalk]

> Compared to many of the others available at the time, it seemed to me to be:
>
> 1.  expensive

Keep in mind that this is largely irrelevant. Terminals were often
used as bargaining chips when large systems were purchased. Salesmen
could "throw in" some number of terminals with a system, in order to
make a sale. If a business was being hard-nosed about the sale of
potential large VAX system, the salesmen could perhaps "sweeten" the
deal with ten or twenty bonus VT100s, free. All the profit was in the
CPUs, or more importantly, in the disk and tape farms (or to be really
fair about this, the service).

--
Will

Re: VT100's

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/6/18 2:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote:

> If you bought a bought a machine from DEC, you probably needed DEC terminals
> or clones of them to get the best from it.  However, the same probably applied
> to other manufacturers.

DEC's keyboard editors didn't talk anything other than VT52 or VT100 protocols
and you needed their keypad for KED to work.

Things like Curses and Termcap weren't a concept people groked at the time.

Re: VT100's

[Peter Coghlan via cctalk]

Zane Healy wrote:

>
> Why is the VT100 so popular?
>

It beats me!

Compared to many of the others available at the time, it seemed to me to be:

1.  expensive
2.  standardised
3.  well designed (the protocol, not the physical implementation)
4.  complex
5.  slow
6.  failure prone (keyboard connector/keys, vertical linearity, power switch)
7.  fragile (in a student environment anyway)
8.  difficult to emulate properly (particularly if whoever was writing the
emulator didn't read the manual or the standard which it appears to me
was most of them)
9.  hard on the ears (that keyboard beep really got on my nerves)
10. ugly

I can't see how any of the above would make it popular except maybe number 2
and 3 but I can't imagine that the average VT100 buyer researched the protocol
in detail before purchase.

If you bought a bought a machine from DEC, you probably needed DEC terminals
or clones of them to get the best from it.  However, the same probably applied
to other manufacturers.

I think a huge proportion of other equipment developers who specified a VT100
to connect to their equipment needed it to do little more than cope with a
very basic ASCII character set plus carriage return and line feed.  It may
have helped that there was an associated ANSI standard but like the terminal
emulator writers, I can't believe than many of them looked at it.

Regards,
Peter Coghlan.

Re: VT100's

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Carlo Pisani  wrote:

> > > cause it's the simplest, I guess
> > The VT100 was quite complicated compared to contemporary terminals at the
> > time of its introduction.
>
> why do you say that?
> a vt100 terminal requires only a text VDU (video display unit) with
> hw-scrolling support, and a piece of software to support the VT100
> protocol (escape-codes decoded into action for the VDU).
>
> in fact, my Digital VT200 comes with an ASIC chip for the VDU, while
> the software side runs on an Intel 8051 MPU that directly interfaces
> the keyboard, the VDU, and the serial line
>
> this doesn't look complex
>

Not complex by today's standards, no.

Compare the VT100 circuitry to the circuitry of contemporary terminals
(1978). Compare the VT100 "programming information" to that for
contemporary terminals. There might have been some other terminals that
complex, but it was way more complex than common terminals of the day.

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 4:22 PM, William Donzelli  wrote:
> 
>> I know that one did get built,
> 
> I had a VT62 a year or two ago.
> 
> I know of a few VT72s up north (I have seen them).

Do you know if anyone has software for them?  It was bundled with Typeset-11 
(TMS-11) and also with the VMS typesetting product that came somewhat later 
(DECset?  VAXset?  I forgot the name).

paul

Re: VT100's

[William Donzelli via cctalk]

> I know that one did get built,

I had a VT62 a year or two ago.

I know of a few VT72s up north (I have seen them).

--
Will

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 4:06 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/6/18 12:42 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote:
>> It shows up in some of the DECdirectories (as do a lot of oddball VTs).
>> 
> 
> Like the VT62 'TRAX' terminal.

I know that one did get built, though probably not shipped much since TRAX was 
dead on arrival.  But its close relative, the VT61/t, did ship in significant 
numbers for Typeset-11 as the terminal for classified advertising entry and low 
end text entry.  It looks like a VT52 on the outside, but inside are a whole 
pile of boards, all single-sided etch with many hundreds of jumpers to 
compensate for not being two-sided.  Not cheap, presumably, but still cheaper 
than the VT71 with its LSI-11 and (character-mode) display processor, very 
roughly a text-only GT40.

paul

Re: VT100's

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/6/18 12:42 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote:
> It shows up in some of the DECdirectories (as do a lot of oddball VTs).
> 

Like the VT62 'TRAX' terminal.

DEC does a 3270 forms terminal, in it's own special way.

or the VT110 DEC Distributed Plant Management multi-drop terminal.

Those were fun to find documentation for..

Re: VT100's

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/6/18 12:28 PM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> 
> 
> Does the VT100 have a microprocessor? 

Yes, an 8080, which sets the time frame for when it was developed.

Later models used a 8085

The biggest hardware innovation was smooth vertical scrolling, and
switching between 80 and 132 columns.

I remembered wondering if they got the idea from a letter to the editor
in either Byte or Dr. Dobbs where someone wondered why video terminals
scrolled a whole character at a time.

I've never liked the feature, because when you look away from the screen
the room looks like it's moving downward. Maybe that's why other company's
terminals let you set the smooth scroll rate.

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 3:42 PM, William Donzelli  wrote:
> 
>> 2. It was the first DEC terminal with a detachable keyboard (not counting 
>> the GT-40) and if you needed an extension cord, you could just get a 
>> headphone cord at Radio Shack.
> 
> The VT27 preceded the VT100, being a VT52 with a detachable keyboard -
> but there is a good possibility few to none actually shipped. It shows
> up in some of the DECdirectories (as do a lot of oddball VTs).

For oddball VTs, there is the VT71/t (and its nearly identical twin the VT72) 
which is an LSI-11 based full file text editing terminal for the Typeset-11 
product line.  Also the VT20, the predecessor of that one (perhaps a prototype 
-- I don't know how many shipped).  That uses an 11/05 as the engine, which 
drives two independent displays in VT05 cabinets.  I've only seen it once, in 
the Typeset-11 development lab, tucked in a corner (not running).

BTW, the VT71 is an example of a MOP booted device, loaded via an async serial 
line.

paul

Re: VT100's

[William Donzelli via cctalk]

> 2. It was the first DEC terminal with a detachable keyboard (not counting the 
> GT-40) and if you needed an extension cord, you could just get a headphone 
> cord at Radio Shack.

The VT27 preceded the VT100, being a VT52 with a detachable keyboard -
but there is a good possibility few to none actually shipped. It shows
up in some of the DECdirectories (as do a lot of oddball VTs).

--
Will

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 3:14 PM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
>>> cause it's the simplest, I guess
>> The VT100 was quite complicated compared to contemporary terminals at the
>> time of its introduction.
> 
> why do you say that?
> a vt100 terminal requires only a text VDU (video display unit) with
> hw-scrolling support, and a piece of software to support the VT100
> protocol (escape-codes decoded into action for the VDU).
> 
> in fact, my Digital VT200 comes with an ASIC chip for the VDU, while
> the software side runs on an Intel 8051 MPU that directly interfaces
> the keyboard, the VDU, and the serial line
> 
> this doesn't look complex

The work of a VT100 is quite a lot more complex than that of a VT52 (many more 
screen operations, and more complex control sequence parsing).  With the 
hardware technology available at the time, it was a pretty tough job.  Does the 
VT100 have a microprocessor? It may predate those.  In hardwired 7400 series 
logic, it isn't an easy job.

The VT1xx series successors did a number of things: eliminate expansion to 
simplify things, offer both basic (VT101) and extended (VT102) options in 
separate designs optimized for the task, and use newer designs to take 
advantage of the rapid evolution of available silicon.  The VT2xx series did 
the same thing yet again.  So the successors of the VT100 are less complex 
(smaller boards with less stuff), less expensive, and/or more capable (VT220 
for example).

Similarly, going in the opposite direction, a VT05 does far less than a VT100 
with much more hardware, because the individual components were less capable.

paul

Re: VT100's

[Tapley, Mark via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 10:34 AM, Zane Healy via cctalk  
> wrote:
> ...
> Personally I prefer the VT420’s, though I’d love a VT340/340+ or VT525.

I have more desire to own systems to play on than I have space or time. 
Addressing the former, I have to say my favorite VT-100-alike is a 
Rainbow. One box (plus monitor plus the dreaded LK-201), three functions in the 
collection: VT-100 emulation (not perfect but not bad), CPM-80/86 (is that one 
or two functions?), MS-DOS 3.11b. 
Having a Rainbow has pretty much forestalled any desire to get a “real” 
VT-100 for me.
FWIW, mine is reasonably well-equipped, with the graphics card (and 
ReGIS for graphics terminal emulation if I run kermit) and a VR-241 color 
monitor.
- Mark

Re: VT100's

[Carlo Pisani via cctalk]

> > cause it's the simplest, I guess
> The VT100 was quite complicated compared to contemporary terminals at the
> time of its introduction.

why do you say that?
a vt100 terminal requires only a text VDU (video display unit) with
hw-scrolling support, and a piece of software to support the VT100
protocol (escape-codes decoded into action for the VDU).

in fact, my Digital VT200 comes with an ASIC chip for the VDU, while
the software side runs on an Intel 8051 MPU that directly interfaces
the keyboard, the VDU, and the serial line

this doesn't look complex

Re: VT100's

[Shoppa, Tim via cctalk]

Zane, are you talking about the VT100 specifically, or the whole VT1xx line?

My gut feeling is that the VT100 was at most 20% of the production in the whole 
VT1xx line. The internal expandability of the VT100 was a cool idea, but 
overall sales of VT101, VT102, VT131, and VT132 have to dwarf the original 
VT100. Then there's the VT103 and VT180 which are more than just terminals but 
still in the family.

I should go through my old pictures from the 1990's. At one point I had an 
entire garage filled with hundreds of VT1xx's.

Tim N3QE

Re: VT100's

[Eric Smith via cctalk]

On 09/06/2018 09:37 AM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk wrote:

> cause it's the simples, I guess
>

The VT100 was quite complicated compared to contemporary terminals at the
time of its introduction.

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> I used to naively think that the VT100 was the lowest end Video Terminal.
> Then I subsequently saw references to VT50 and VT52.  So now I have no clue.
>

If you think those were crude, take a look at the VT05, DEC's first
standalone serial video terminal.

Re: VT100's

[Carlo Pisani via cctalk]

I am building my own VT100 terminal (FPGA project), and it will be
laptop-shape :P

here I own a Digital VT220, it's a unit with its custom keyboard, with
special keys, the output of the unit is VGA, and it has two serial
ports with a db25 connector

Il giorno gio 6 set 2018 alle ore 19:09 allison via cctalk
 ha scritto:
>
> On 09/06/2018 12:54 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
> >
> > On 9/6/18 9:48 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> >> VT50 seems like it was someone's mistake -- 12 lines, what were they 
> >> thinking?
> >
> Mostly about screen memory which back then was small and not cheap.
>
>
> Allison

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 1:09 PM, allison via cctalk  wrote:
> 
> On 09/06/2018 12:54 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>> 
>> On 9/6/18 9:48 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>>> VT50 seems like it was someone's mistake -- 12 lines, what were they 
>>> thinking?
>> 
> Mostly about screen memory which back then was small and not cheap.

True.  Did the VT05 use core memory for that?  I vaguely remember it did.

Still, it was strange to go backward from 20 x 72 (VT05) to 12 x 80 (VT50).

While the VT05 isn't all that well known, it probably deserves recognition as 
the most interesting looking DEC terminal.

paul

Re: VT100's

[allison via cctalk]

On 09/06/2018 12:54 PM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:
>
> On 9/6/18 9:48 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
>> VT50 seems like it was someone's mistake -- 12 lines, what were they 
>> thinking?
>
Mostly about screen memory which back then was small and not cheap.


Allison

Re: VT100's

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/6/18 9:48 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote:
> VT50 seems like it was someone's mistake -- 12 lines, what were they thinking?

IBM 3270
available in 12 or 24 lines

Re: VT100's

[Paul Koning via cctalk]

> On Sep 6, 2018, at 12:22 PM, Grant Taylor via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> On 09/06/2018 09:37 AM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk wrote:
>> cause it's the simples, I guess
> 
> I used to naively think that the VT100 was the lowest end Video Terminal.  
> Then I subsequently saw references to VT50 and VT52.  So now I have no clue.
> 
> Maybe it was just the fact that so many things claimed VT100 compatibility 
> helped escalate VT100 in popularity.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I can think of a bunch of reasons.

1. For its time, the VT100 was pretty compact.
2. It was the first DEC terminal with a detachable keyboard (not counting the 
GT-40) and if you needed an extension cord, you could just get a headphone cord 
at Radio Shack.
3. It was the first DEC terminal to implement a standard for control sequences 
(ANSI controls).

Before then, the VT52 was certainly attractive, same screen size (24 by 80) and 
upper/lower case (English only, give or take some national variants).  But it's 
much bigger and doesn't have a separate keyboard.  VT50 seems like it was 
someone's mistake -- 12 lines, what were they thinking?  Even the VT05 had 20.

paul

Re: VT100's

[Al Kossow via cctalk]

On 9/6/18 9:28 AM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk wrote:

> keyboards are *huge*
are too high, and the Hi-Tek plungers in the keys crack and bind (true for the 
VT-5x as well)

I'm going through a terminal collecting binge again.
It took me a couple of days to find a terminal with a working monitor and 
keyboard
to plug onto the MC-1200

I think every Qume keyboard I have is dead.

Finally ended up fixing a WY-75 I just bought with parts from a WY-50.
(It looks like it's just a rom swap to make the 50 ANSI compliant now
 that I have a 75 to compare it to)

Re: VT100's

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk
 wrote:
> We didn't have a single VT100 in the house when we were running a VAX.
>
> C Itoh, CIT-220s in our case.   Nice terminals with 14" screens.

We had multiple VT100s and VT101s and VT102s but at some point in the
company's growth phase, we switched to  Citoh 101 and 101e terminals
for cost.  We probably ended up 20% DEC and 80% Citoh.

>> I personally seem to use a VT220 for most of my general hacking. It's nice
>> to have the current loop interface!

Somehow we also got 4-5 VT220s.  In 1985, they were fantastic
terminals (except for the width of the LK201 keyboards as mentioned
elsewhere).  I also used the current loop input on the VT220, when I
was debugging the serial clock on my PDP-8/L.  Very handy.

-ethan

Re: VT100's

[Ethan Dicks via cctalk]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk
 wrote:
> My biggest complaint with DEC terminals (and clones) that came after the VT100
> (such as the VT220/VT320/etc) is that the terminals are nice and small but the
> keyboards are *huge* (almost twice the width of the terminal itself).

I agree that the LK201 is excessively wide.

Back when I was using terminals every day, it was easy to plop one or
two VT100/Citoh101 terminals on one desk but the VT220s we kept in the
machine room mostly, sitting on top of 42" cabs, and the keyboards
were thinnerthan VT100 keyboards which was handy on top of machines.

-ethan

Re: VT100's

[Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk]

My biggest complaint with DEC terminals (and clones) that came after the VT100
(such as the VT220/VT320/etc) is that the terminals are nice and small but the
keyboards are *huge* (almost twice the width of the terminal itself).

I like having a keyboard that matches the size of the terminal and the VT100 is
along those lines.

It is also the same complaint that I have with IBM 3178/9 terminals (e.g. 
connect
to IBM 370 mainframes), where the terminal is relatively small but the keyboard 
is
significantly wider (being a derivative of the IBM PC/AT keyboard) and IMHO
would have been far better if IBM had left off the number pad.

TTFN - Guy


> On Sep 6, 2018, at 9:16 AM, Chuck Guzis via cctalk  
> wrote:
> 
> We didn't have a single VT100 in the house when we were running a VAX.
> 
> C Itoh, CIT-220s in our case.   Nice terminals with 14" screens.
> 
> Lots of VT100/VT220 clones were popular.  I did some programming for a
> specific VT220 clone from TAB products.
> 
> --Chuck
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 09/06/2018 09:03 AM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
>> I'm personally interested in an original because it's the physical standard
>> that a lot of imitations and emulations decided to implement. For similar
>> reasons, I have a LSI ADM-3A -- not because it's the best terminal ever,
>> but because it is so interwoven into the history of UNIX.
>> 
>> I personally seem to use a VT220 for most of my general hacking. It's nice
>> to have the current loop interface!

Re: VT100's

[Grant Taylor via cctalk]

On 09/06/2018 09:37 AM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk wrote:

cause it's the simples, I guess


I used to naively think that the VT100 was the lowest end Video 
Terminal.  Then I subsequently saw references to VT50 and VT52.  So now 
I have no clue.


Maybe it was just the fact that so many things claimed VT100 
compatibility helped escalate VT100 in popularity.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯




--
Grant. . . .
unix || die

Re: VT100's

[Chuck Guzis via cctalk]

We didn't have a single VT100 in the house when we were running a VAX.

C Itoh, CIT-220s in our case.   Nice terminals with 14" screens.

Lots of VT100/VT220 clones were popular.  I did some programming for a
specific VT220 clone from TAB products.

--Chuck




On 09/06/2018 09:03 AM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:
> I'm personally interested in an original because it's the physical standard
> that a lot of imitations and emulations decided to implement. For similar
> reasons, I have a LSI ADM-3A -- not because it's the best terminal ever,
> but because it is so interwoven into the history of UNIX.
> 
> I personally seem to use a VT220 for most of my general hacking. It's nice
> to have the current loop interface!

Re: VT100's

[systems_glitch via cctalk]

I'm personally interested in an original because it's the physical standard
that a lot of imitations and emulations decided to implement. For similar
reasons, I have a LSI ADM-3A -- not because it's the best terminal ever,
but because it is so interwoven into the history of UNIX.

I personally seem to use a VT220 for most of my general hacking. It's nice
to have the current loop interface!

Thanks,
Jonathan

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:37 AM Carlo Pisani via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> cause it's the simples, I guess
> Il giorno gio 6 set 2018 alle ore 17:35 Zane Healy via cctalk
>  ha scritto:
> >
> > Let me start by saying this isn’t intended to start a flame war or
> anything.  I’m genuinely curious.
> >
> > Why is the VT100 so popular?
> >
> > Personally I prefer the VT420’s, though I’d love a VT340/340+ or VT525.
> >
> > I have VT100’s, 320’s and 420’s.  I really only use VT420’s.  In fact I
> have one sitting next to my desk in my office hooked to a DECserver 90TL.
> >
> > Zane
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: VT100's

[Bill Degnan via cctalk]

Popular as a vintage terminal to match up with machines of the same time
period.  The 420 is lighter, smaller, has graphics it's not about that stuff
b

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:37 AM Carlo Pisani via cctalk <
cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote:

> cause it's the simples, I guess
> Il giorno gio 6 set 2018 alle ore 17:35 Zane Healy via cctalk
>  ha scritto:
> >
> > Let me start by saying this isn’t intended to start a flame war or
> anything.  I’m genuinely curious.
> >
> > Why is the VT100 so popular?
> >
> > Personally I prefer the VT420’s, though I’d love a VT340/340+ or VT525.
> >
> > I have VT100’s, 320’s and 420’s.  I really only use VT420’s.  In fact I
> have one sitting next to my desk in my office hooked to a DECserver 90TL.
> >
> > Zane
> >
> >
> >
>

Re: VT100's

[Carlo Pisani via cctalk]

cause it's the simples, I guess
Il giorno gio 6 set 2018 alle ore 17:35 Zane Healy via cctalk
 ha scritto:
>
> Let me start by saying this isn’t intended to start a flame war or anything.  
> I’m genuinely curious.
>
> Why is the VT100 so popular?
>
> Personally I prefer the VT420’s, though I’d love a VT340/340+ or VT525.
>
> I have VT100’s, 320’s and 420’s.  I really only use VT420’s.  In fact I have 
> one sitting next to my desk in my office hooked to a DECserver 90TL.
>
> Zane
>
>
>

VT100's

[Zane Healy via cctalk]

Let me start by saying this isn’t intended to start a flame war or anything.  
I’m genuinely curious.

Why is the VT100 so popular?  

Personally I prefer the VT420’s, though I’d love a VT340/340+ or VT525.

I have VT100’s, 320’s and 420’s.  I really only use VT420’s.  In fact I have 
one sitting next to my desk in my office hooked to a DECserver 90TL.

Zane