5 May
2006
5 May
'06
9:46 p.m.
Terminals are smaller. They are quieter. They suck
less power. They
generate less heat. They boot a *hell* of a lot faster - most
terminals are functioning before even aimed-at-embedded SBCs have more
than barely started POST, never mind booted. They're less expensive.
Of course, there are other respects in which terminals fall short.
Most of them can be summarized as "they're less flexible" - for
exmaple, you can't capture output into a file, you can't copy a file
into the input stream, you have limited (in some cases *very* limited)
local editing capability....
I find the HP95LX and 100LX to be a good compromise here. They're small,
silent (apart from the beep) and run off a couple of AA cells. They have
a reasonable terminal emulator in ROM which starts up in less time than
most CRTs take to warm up (the main startup time of a traditional
terminal). They can capture incoming data to a file in RAM, and they have
kermit and XModem up/download.
No, they're not a replacement for a real terminal (I use those as well).
It's just another tool that sometimes useful. Like most people here I
don't feel that one tool (in all senses of the word) has to solve all
problems.
-tony