22 Oct
2015
22 Oct
'15
8:07 a.m.
On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt
at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
On 2015-10-22 16:32, Paul Koning wrote:
Paul, I think you just said the same thing I did. Did you misunderstand me, or did I do a
typo somewhere?
No, you said that the VT100 is field upgradeable to the VT101 and/or VT102. And I said
that there are several VT100 variants, and that a VT100-xx is field upgradeable to a
VT100-yy. But no VT101 or VT102 is field upgradeable to anything else, nor is a VT100
field upgradeable to a VT101 or VT102.
To elaborate: the VT101 and VT102 are a generation after the VT100, each fixed config.
I'm guessing that the fixed config thing was done, as well as the other changes in the
details, to reduce cost. Cost reducing a product while leaving its features largely
untouched was a standard thing to do at DEC (and for that matter is a standard thing to do
at any manufacturing organization).
paul
On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Johnny Billquist
<bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
...
The VT100 is field upgradeable to a VT101 (I think) or a VT102 (I know). However, the
VT102 is not the same as a VT100 with the added AVO and printer. Functionally they are the
same, but inside they will look different.
That doesn't sound right.
The way I remember it is that the VT100 comes in several configurations (for example AVO
or not) and you can field modify it from one to another.
On the other hand, the VT101 and VT102 are fixed configs (that is, not intended to be
field upgradable), roughly matching the base and AVO versions of the VT100 in
functionality.
It may be that you could, with enough knowledge, turn a VT101 into a VT102 or vice versa,
but that wasn't a supported operation from what I remember.