Mail Archives: opendos/1997/09/12/07:50:03
-= ArkanoiD =- wrote:
> [Assume we are not speaking about original vt100 without memory option.
> they are _really_ rare thins]
I don't remember if it has the memory option - I think it does, but as
an installed option not built-in. But yes, it's an original VT100 with
the old case and keyboard. I also have a DecPrinter III (basically the
DecWriter without the keyboard), but the ribbon is dead and it's getting
difficult to replace them.
> Hmm really? I have one too (built-in my Digital Rainbow) - and i've _never_
> seen _any_ emulator close to it - even in graphical environments like
> MacOS (yep,i have a Macintrash,just for fun) or windoze. No smooth scrolling,
> no double height/double width characters..
True, smooth scrolling is missing and very few people can be bothered to
make fonts for the double height and width characters. Most PC
implementations seem to put the whole screen into double width mode
(the old 40 character mode).
> And i've _never_ had any problems
> with Unix or VMS software and real vt100.
Not directly, no. But some of the net software seems to get really
confused, even if you tell it in the telnet that you're a VT100.
> Most of the emulators are far from
> real vt100 even if you don't mind those excellent things - when i try to
> use smth like say,term90 from Norton Commander and elm on unix system or
> irc client or smth like that i have to press ^L every few seconds to keep
> something on the screen because emulation is buggy!
For straight serial ports I use Telix, and their VT100 emulation is pretty
good, I haven't had any problems (modulo the double width and height, of
course). I've had problems with telnet in an xterm session on Unix, though.
> about vt102.{com|sys}.. the thing it does not have is graphic characters.
Another thing almost nothing has. I don't know why, since it would be
easy enough to convert them to the PC's set.
> PC DOS 7 has Stacker,really the best one. _far_ better than doublespace
> (or how was it called)?
Doublespace, drivespace - I don't like them at all. Disks are cheaper
than RAM, especially when the drivers sit in base RAM.
> I always prefered Central Point one.. btw i've seen disks with contents
> damaged with Symantec defragmenter - and never seen any damaged by CP.
I've never seen disks damaged by Norton/Symantec, or by DEFRAG, and I've used
them a lot. Not saying it can't happen, but it's rare enough that it's
statistically unreliable. I've never tried Central Point - I gather they do
(or did) a good tape streamer program as well.
> Help and undelete were there from v5.. and i already have defrag program.
I don't remember them, but then I usually use the old Norton 4.5 'qu'
(quick undelete) anyway and the 4DOS help.
> I think replacing gwbasic and edlin with qbasic and edit was a _major_
> mistake..
EDLIN should have been kept as an alternative, the same way as I keep Unix
ed for emergencies. I don't use BASIC enough to really notice the
difference (didn't gwbasic depend on the old IBM PC ROM BASIC, or was
that only in early versions?).
> > Less base memory, certainly
> With QEMM - no.
I don't remember - I upgraded QEMM as well around the same time, so I
don't know how well it works with v5.
> Sure.. I can't figure out why some idiot burned ROM DOS 5.0 to my mec v30
> palmtop..
Not sensible...
> SMARTDRV can not be better or worse,it is complete _shit_.
> ..and delayed write with it is _dangerous_,it damages data!
> Use any pd cache instead.
I've never found a PD cache with either good performance or reliable. I've
never had any problems with delayed write and SMARTDRV, except that in old
versions it used to disable interrupts for far too long and clobbe comms.
Of course there's the problem if you switch off or reboot the machine, but
that's the problem with delayed write cache in general not with SMARTDRV
in particular.
Chris C
- Raw text -