On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Eric Smith <eric at brouhaha.com> wrote: So there isn't an RS-232 or similar off the back and you can't just jack it into your Linux box?

Eric Smith wrote: It would do ordinary RS-232 or an async multidrop DDCMP variation. Here's a snip from a collection of 18 year old postings (old enough to vote, but not to drink)! The VT62 was the one with block mode. ftp://cs.utk.edu/pub/shuford/terminal/block_mode_news.txt As far as I know, DEC only made one true block mode terminal: The VT61 (or was it the VT62? I can no longer remember?) The VT61 was designed to be used with a long-forgotten system called TRAX. TRAX was a PDP-11-based dedicated transaction-processing system. A special terminal interface connected VT61's to a TRAX system; communication was based on multi-drop polled DDCMP. The VT61 could do all sorts of fancy on-screen editing before sending data back in a single DDCMP packet. (The VT62 - or perhaps I have the numbers backward - was a VT61 that used standard async lines. I don't know what they were supposed to be used for, and it's not clear to me that DEC ever actually *sold* any. Both terminals were based on the VT52, and did an impressive amount of processing for their size, given the era in which they were built. Within DEC, VT62's were used as VT52 replacements. When used this way, their main advantage was that, unlike the VT52, they supported reverse video.) I gave my (DEC employee purchased) VT62 away a few years back... The flimsey circuit boards had made it unreliable. I kept my VT52, which has a much more satisfying key crunch sound (the VT62 replaced the electromechanical clicker with a speaker). I think there was also a volume pot. for the speaker. I forget what the bell sound on the '62 was. Certainly less offensive than the '52, but that's half the fun! ISTR the VT61 had useful extensions (like insert/delete line and/or insert/delete character), but the only one I ever saw (when I worked at DEC) was noisy, and the screen could be easily scrambled due to electrostatic disturbances (shuffling on the carpet), even at a distance! Phil

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012, Richard wrote: Interesting. Many years ago, before MS-DOS KERMIT got its act together, I noticed that RT-11 K52 seemed to be trying to highlight things using ^[T and ^[U. A VT52, of course, doesn't recognize these sequences. At that time, KERMIT wasn't properly ignoring them. -- roger ivie rivie at ridgnet.net