6 Sep
2016
6 Sep
'16
2:52 p.m.
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote:
We never had luck with it on VAXen and hundreds of feet of wire in the
1980s, but we _did_ have 100% rock-solid performance at 9600. Of
course, we also had few genuine VT100s as opposed to VT101, VT102,
VT220, and CiTOH 101 terminals.
I do recall that the real, original VT100 was _not_ as capable as any
of its predecessors, supporting the recent comments in this thread
about "not the same as a VT102". I would agree.
On Sep 4, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Fritz Mueller
<fritzm at fritzm.org> wrote:
Hi all ?
I?m trying to run a real-deal vt100 on a serial port connected to Linux... and 19200 is a
hopeless mess.
19200? I didn't think the VT100 supported that. I have never heard of "padding" for any DEC
video terminals other than the VT05. And I have never seen messed up characters at 9600
baud.
I never had to fiddle any sort of padding characters (on
non-printing/CRT devices). Our oldest terminals _were_ the original
VT100, and probably represented at most 5% of our installed terminals.
-ethan