Popular as a vintage terminal to match up with machines of the same time period. The 420 is lighter, smaller, has graphics it's not about that stuff b On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 11:37 AM Carlo Pisani via cctalk < cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote:

We didn't have a single VT100 in the house when we were running a VAX. C Itoh, CIT-220s in our case. Nice terminals with 14" screens. Lots of VT100/VT220 clones were popular. I did some programming for a specific VT220 clone from TAB products. --Chuck On 09/06/2018 09:03 AM, systems_glitch via cctalk wrote:

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:28 PM, Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: I agree that the LK201 is excessively wide. Back when I was using terminals every day, it was easy to plop one or two VT100/Citoh101 terminals on one desk but the VT220s we kept in the machine room mostly, sitting on top of 42" cabs, and the keyboards were thinnerthan VT100 keyboards which was handy on top of machines. -ethan

Heh, another Guy. Who likes short keyboards, same as me. I refuse to use anything but 10keyless keyboards, since I object to the extra distance between mouse at right and the alpha key area. I never use the numeric pad if it's there. Guy At 09:28 AM 6/09/2018 -0700, you wrote:

On 09/06/2018 09:37 AM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk wrote: I used to naively think that the VT100 was the lowest end Video Terminal. Then I subsequently saw references to VT50 and VT52. So now I have no clue. Maybe it was just the fact that so many things claimed VT100 compatibility helped escalate VT100 in popularity. ?\_(?)_/? -- Grant. . . . unix || die

On 9/6/18 9:48 AM, Paul Koning via cctalk wrote: IBM 3270 available in 12 or 24 lines

True. Did the VT05 use core memory for that? I vaguely remember it did. Still, it was strange to go backward from 20 x 72 (VT05) to 12 x 80 (VT50). While the VT05 isn't all that well known, it probably deserves recognition as the most interesting looking DEC terminal. paul

Oh yes, VT05 fill, RSTS supports that (or at least in earlier versions). That's fill after LF rather than the fill after CR needed by older hard-copy terminals (including the much despised LA30s). VT05 was 2400 baud max, if I remember right. 9600 was mind-boggling when I first saw it. paul

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 6:15 PM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: Trend Data System (the company that made some very nice paper tape readers made/sold such a terminal many years ago. There were at least 2 versions, one did 5 bit ('Baudot', 'Murray' (although it's actually neither), ITA2..), the other was a VT100-a-like. The display was LCD which could be folded over the keyboard when not in use. It needed an external 12V supply (I don't think there was ever an internal battery version). It was very close to a real VT100, even the setup options were identical. -tony

That?s an interesting terminal. Totally pointless for me, but it would be cool. Zane

The VT27 preceded the VT100, being a VT52 with a detachable keyboard - but there is a good possibility few to none actually shipped. It shows up in some of the DECdirectories (as do a lot of oddball VTs). -- Will

A long time ago, I had the incomplete remnants of an oddball terminal which I retrieved from a junk pile at a small, obscure school in Pasadena. I'll try to describe it as best I can, based on old memory. I could have sworn that it had a dataplate label identifying it as a DEC VT02, but that could be way off the mark. It was built around a Tektronix vector storage display, oriented in portrait mode. It had quite a bit of screen burn from its long life displaying text. I don't recall the model number of the display, but I might recognize one if I saw it. It was quite long, making the whole terminal quite long. It had X, Y and Z BNC inputs, and it had a neat test mode that drew a spiral on the screen. The display sat on top of a long chassis with a keyboard at one end, a small Flip Chip backplane around the middle, and a power supply (probably linear, IIRC) at the rear end. I don't think that the Flip Chip boards were still in it when I got it, but it came along with a small box of spare Flip Chips. After setting the big Tektronix display on top of the lower chassis, there was a long U-shaped sheet metal cover that sat over the top and covered the display, making it look somewhat like a single device rather than a stack of two things. The lower chassis and the top cover were painted approximately white as I recall. I never did anything interesting with the display other than occasionally driving it with signal generators, and I got rid of the whole pile a long, long time ago. Does that old beast sound remotely familiar to anybody here? How hard should I kick myself for not keeping it? -- Mark J. Blair, NF6X <nf6x at nf6x.net> http://www.nf6x.net/

Speaking of oddball terminals, does anyone have details on Cybernex APL-100 terminals? I acquired one a couple of years ago and have had no luck locating documentation for them. From: "cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> To: "cctalk" <cctalk at classiccmp.org> Sent: Friday, September 7, 2018 8:41:23 AM Subject: Re: Oddball Terminals (Was: Re: VT100's) On 9/6/2018 10:38 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: The display was most likely a Tektronix 611. DEC used them with their point plot display systems like the VC8E. Bob -- Vintage computers and electronics www.dvq.com www.tekmuseum.com www.decmuseum.org

On 9/7/18 9:09 AM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: The VT02 was apparently a PDP-8 device https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1185657/m2/1/high_res_d/66… Thus the FY 1969 equipment increment was procured from DEC and consisted of one KAIO Processor, one PDP-8 Computer (4K memory), 4 VT02 Terminals, plus controllers, teleprinters, and cables for a total of $167,042. For FY 1970, the plan called for additional memory capability, disk packs, and additional inputting terminals for a total of $189,000. The only thing we have in the archive apparently are four proof negatives, unless the controller had a different name.

Thanks for digging that up! I had never managed to google up any details before. -- Mark J. Blair <nf6x at nf6x.net> http://www.nf6x.net

interesting.. the vt71t has inverted-T cursor keys On 9/7/18 11:57 AM, Al Kossow via cctalk wrote:

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:16 PM Frank McConnell via cctalk < cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: Yes. I had an old DEC Rainbow... For years I used it as a terminal, but I hacked things to swap the CAPS LOCK and CONTROL keys. But the control key was still to the left of the CAPS LOCK key. It was the IBM PC keyboard that moved the control key below the Shift key. Most other terminals before then didn't do that :( Warner

On Fri, Sep 7, 2018 at 5:33 PM Guy Sotomayor Jr via cctalk < cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: I think you forgot the "coke bottle" key :) http://www.catb.org/jargon/html/S/space-cadet-keyboard.html Warner

Nice, working photos of a VT20. I'd forgotten the oddball keys on the side. In the VT71 picture, you can see the UDKs -- the blank keycaps in the top row. Above them are handwritten labels on that piece of cardboard, indicating what each one does (regular and shifted, two macros per key). There are some obvious newspaper specific functions, like "Wire dir sports" or "head fit" (i.e., take the current story headline and report how wide it is, to see if it fits in the columns allowed for it). The VT72 document has a description of the display controller, so if VT71/72 software ever materializes that can be used to teach SIMH how to emulate the terminal. paul

On 09/07/2018 02:55 PM, Mark J. Blair via cctalk wrote: The display is actually a Tektronix 611 direct-view storage tube. Jon

On Fri, 7 Sep 2018 at 21:08, Al Kossow via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: Oddly, since others are commenting, this whole site is inaccessible for me in Prague, both yesterday and today. ? This site can?t be reached bitsavers.org took too long to respond. Search Google for bitsavers org pdf dec terminal ERR_CONNECTION_TIMED_OUT ? I wanna see the piccies! :'( -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lproven at cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lproven at gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ?R (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053

Infotrons!? ?and the old? UPPER? CASE ONLY? BEEHIVES! I? remember those and also? the old? TEC terminals ? A recent? TEC? ?endowment to the museum was? of all these multi colored? books? TEC? put out on all their? terminal lines.? ?I need? to see? ?where? they? may already? be? scanned.. in? ?not? can? go on the someday to be scanned? ?stack. ? checking bitsavers?http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/tec/? ?I? see? there are? ? some? listed so maybe? not all that? unusual...? will see? what? ?we have? they? ?don't. ? We? had a? TEC? terminal? in the? computer? room? at? Computer Exchange at? one? time.... wish I had? kept it. ? there? ?is? one? model upper? case beehive? I? need? for a? ?display if anyone? still has? some? ?drop me? a? line email offlist? thx? ed#? www.smecc.org ? In a message dated 9/8/2018 10:07:26 AM US Mountain Standard Time, cctalk at classiccmp.org writes: ? I miss my old Televideo 910. I wonder if Steve Albany stole it? At ASU, when I was a kid pulling DECwriter printers out the bin to check for printouts in half-duplex, they had something called an Infoton. It was uppercase only and had the worst keyboard, ever. It felt like typing on a wet sponge.

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018, 12:06 PM Chuck Guzis via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.orgwrote: My first TTY was the DECwriter II. My first terminal was a Beehive BH100. I hacked together some TECO to support it on a local vi/emacs/EDT-like visual mode editor... IIRC, the escape sequences were put into specific numbered registers as TECO macros. A poor man's curses in the mid 70's.... I thought it was super cool until I discovered emacs at school on our 11/750... Warner

On 9/6/18 12:42 PM, William Donzelli via cctalk wrote: Like the VT62 'TRAX' terminal. DEC does a 3270 forms terminal, in it's own special way. or the VT110 DEC Distributed Plant Management multi-drop terminal. Those were fun to find documentation for..

I had a VT62 a year or two ago. I know of a few VT72s up north (I have seen them). -- Will

On 09/06/2018 09:37 AM, Carlo Pisani via cctalk wrote: The VT100 was quite complicated compared to contemporary terminals at the time of its introduction. On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 10:22 AM, Grant Taylor via cctalk < cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: If you think those were crude, take a look at the VT05, DEC's first standalone serial video terminal.

The work of a VT100 is quite a lot more complex than that of a VT52 (many more screen operations, and more complex control sequence parsing). With the hardware technology available at the time, it was a pretty tough job. Does the VT100 have a microprocessor? It may predate those. In hardwired 7400 series logic, it isn't an easy job. The VT1xx series successors did a number of things: eliminate expansion to simplify things, offer both basic (VT101) and extended (VT102) options in separate designs optimized for the task, and use newer designs to take advantage of the rapid evolution of available silicon. The VT2xx series did the same thing yet again. So the successors of the VT100 are less complex (smaller boards with less stuff), less expensive, and/or more capable (VT220 for example). Similarly, going in the opposite direction, a VT05 does far less than a VT100 with much more hardware, because the individual components were less capable. paul

On Thu, 6 Sep 2018, Paul Koning wrote: Yes, the V100 has an Intel 8080, the stripped-down V101 has an Intel 8085. Christian

I don't know that particular one. But a possible answer would be: because the VT100 had a bunch of strange corner cases that were not documented and not necessarily well understood. DEC created an internal standard for terminal behavior; that specification was extremely detailed and very well written. It became the functional specification for the VT200 series. I used it to write the terminal emulator for RSTS on the Pro. It was understood at the time that this spec was close to VT100 behavior (apart from 8 bit characters instead of 7) but not exactly that, and deliberately so. Similar things have happened in other places. There is DDCMP, and "DMC compatibility mode" which is best described as "DDCMP with certain bugs". It hard to find a reasonable description of the latter. If you want to do DDCMP, you're best off implementing the spec (which is easy) but if you do, it won't work 100% with the "high speed" variant of the DMC-11. paul

On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 1:17 PM Tapley, Mark via cctalk < cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: The TRM had a list of differences in it. They were both highly esoteric and generally not an issue for anything I ever ran on my Rainbow for the decade or so I used it. I don't think it mentioned DDCMP though. Warner

On 9/6/18 2:55 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk wrote: DEC's keyboard editors didn't talk anything other than VT52 or VT100 protocols and you needed their keypad for KED to work. Things like Curses and Termcap weren't a concept people groked at the time.

Keep in mind that this is largely irrelevant. Terminals were often used as bargaining chips when large systems were purchased. Salesmen could "throw in" some number of terminals with a system, in order to make a sale. If a business was being hard-nosed about the sale of potential large VAX system, the salesmen could perhaps "sweeten" the deal with ten or twenty bonus VT100s, free. All the profit was in the CPUs, or more importantly, in the disk and tape farms (or to be really fair about this, the service). -- Will

My recollections, having worked for Stockebra in the comm group when he started the 50. These are all recollections, from my time working at DEC, no looking at history books, no interweb tube alta vista quesries. 50 was a quite brilliant limited capability terminal, that could replace the OEM'd VTs that were are at the time. It was supposed to offer a thermal printer iirc, but that got pushed to 52. 52 was a reengineered/recpacked more easily manufactured unit. Both were relative light compared to the other bulky ones that were more sleek and lots heavier. WE could sling a 50/52 around from lab to lab with TTY connections, RS232 connections, and they just worked when we hooked them up. We used a 52 as the base for the VT78 - better psu in the 52 is what I recall for that decision. The 100 models were - at the time - like something out of scifi, and something like the Heath product. Follow on models were even more scifi and fantastic. So, a little geezing a tiny bit of tech, and just anecdotal rememberance. I like the 220/240 models me self. bb On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 7:24 PM Steve Malikoff via cctalk <cctalk at classiccmp.org> wrote: