🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4058@isgtec.isgtec.com> ken@isgtec.com (Ken Newman) writes:
>> and Uniterm, whilst I like it
>> very much, is too uncomfortable to use (and can only talk to the first
>> serial port).
>
>Now there's a logical analysis - whatever an uncomfortable term program 
>is...

I don't know either.  I'm quite "comfortable" with Uniterm...

>> and if you have a halfway
>> decent screen accelerator (NVDI or Warp9) it will pretty well keep up with
>> 9600 on an ST, something that Flash doesn't seem to all that well.
>
>Sigh. Why do people say stuff like this? Right now I'm using vi through
>Flash 1.6 at 19200 baud, and screen redrawing is excellent. I also 
>use Quick ST, which I hear is not as fast as Warp9. BTW, I tried STalker
>with the same Quick ST, and it was still the slowest vt100 emulation
>I've ever seen. Do you even use vt100 termcaps on a Unix system?

The "problem" is that STalker is TOO compatible with GEM.  If it
weren't written for maximal compatibility with all sorts of STs, it
would be quite possible to make it faster.

It wasn't designed PARTICULARLY for speed, but rather to actually
WORK.

Most of the OTHER terminal programs aren't too happy about running on
systems with any kind of special graphics hardware, for instance.

>> If you only have an ST, use Uniterm, you don't have the speed or need for
>> anything more.
>
>Or Flash 1.6.

I'd agree that Flash is one of the choices.

>> If you have a Mega STe, an accelerated ST, or a TT,
>
>use Flash 1.6 :)
>
>> use either STalker
>> (whose VT100 is pretty good when you set it up right,
>
>hah! unless you don't want lines over 80 chars displayed correctly.

Unfortunately, that IS one of my gripes about STalker.  A terminal
program can't be completely compatible with BOTH GEM and VT1xx at the
same time, without making SOME compromises.

>> CoNnect, which is as close to flawless as I have ever seen a
>> terminal emulator get.
>
>Does it have an editable capture buffer with word wrap? 

No, but you can use almost any text editor to edit captured text while
it's running.

I use Sudden View; others may prefer other editors.  The really GOOD
thing about it all is that CoNNect doesn't try to be a text editor as
well as a communications program.

>Is it as fast as Flash 1.6?

No, but then it uses GEM, and Flash doesn't.

Does Flash 1.6 use GEM, or does it do arcane things that make it
incompatible with newer hardware?

>I get the feeling a lot of people use term programs to just dial up
>bulletin boards in TTY mode, without ever using a real editor or
>something that requires vt100, and then telling me about vt100 emulation.

I'm sure you're correct.

However, there ARE some of us that require proper VTxxx emulation.
I'm currently editing this message using GNU Emacs, and it requires
better than VT52.  I usually emulate VT220 using Uniterm, and that
works extremely well.

Important point:  Under UNIX, you can make almost ANY kind of terminal
emulation compatible, so long as you set up a correct TERMCAP entry.

Flash was one of the programs that actually included a set of TERMCAP
entries;

Uniterm does flawless VT52/100/102/220 emulation (as far as the
standard TERMCAP entries are concerned), and thus doesn't need any
kind of special TERMCAP.

CoNNect also seems to do pretty good emulation of VT52/100/102/220 and
I think VT320, and correspondingly doesn't require any modified
TERMCAP entries.  Depending on the screen size, 
stty rows xxx columns xxx may be needed, but even THAT is done in
"standard" fashion.  GNU-Emacs was quite happy with the way CoNNect
did this.

I expect that all that STalker needs is for someone to come up with an
appropriate TERMCAP entry, to make up for the "lies" about its VT100
emulation.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.