4 Nov
2007
4 Nov
'07
11:24 a.m.
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 12:55:10 -0500
From: Dave McGuire <mcguire at neurotica.com>
Subject: Re: modern serial terminal
On Nov 4, 2007, at 12:39 PM, woodelf wrote:
>> I really cannot fathom why people keep
suggesting a computer when
>> the OP wanted a *terminal*.
> A 6809 terminal sounds easy. :)
And fun!
-----------------
A moot distinction; what's the difference? If you must have a terminal box
instead of just running your vintage hardware from the computer on your
desk, just take an old laptop, remove the (perhaps broken) display, stick a
USB or Flash disk in it to boot and run emulation S/W from, plug in your
keyboard, display and RS-232 cable and how's that different in any real
sense from a fancy terminal? CPU, EEPROM, RAM and I/O; sounds the
same to me, and probably free...
Except of course for the added features of programmability, extra memory,
up/download and text capture capability, network access, RS-232<>Internet
bridge capability, printer & USB ports, alternate keyboard, modem, etc.
I've got a dozen terminals here gathering dust; my small 486 Compaq laptop
is portable and way more convenient. The only terminal I have kept on my desk
is a Cromemco C-5 to run one particular HD diagnostic program because AFAIK
there isn't an emulator for Cromemco 3101-style terminals, but a couple of
us are working on it so I hope to be able to retire that one as well soon.
I have to admit that using an XT doesn't make much sense to me either though;
why would anyone... (oh, oh, starting to sound like Tony...)
If you insist, I have a couple of 6502-based Linger 65/9028VT terminal
boards (abt 6"x4", Heath/Televideo/Hazeltine/ANSI etc.) and also a bunch of
8631/8563-based Crestline CT-128 colour terminals in enclosures
(abt 8"x5"x2", Intecolor, VGA/composite); the only catch is that
there's no
source available for the EPROMs AFAIK (although there _might_ be).
mike
4 Nov
4 Nov
12:26 p.m.
M H Stein wrote:
-----------------
A moot distinction; what's the difference? If you must have a terminal box
instead of just running your vintage hardware from the computer on your
desk, just take an old laptop, remove the (perhaps broken) display, stick a
USB or Flash disk in it to boot and run emulation S/W from, plug in your
keyboard, display and RS-232 cable and how's that different in any real
sense from a fancy terminal? CPU, EEPROM, RAM and I/O; sounds the
same to me, and probably free...
That's exactly what I do. I've got a couple of old mini notebooks that
I use as terminals. They're
worthless for anything else as they're ancient and would only run
something like win95, so I set'em
up to boot up in Hyperterm.
Now, my main "terminal" is my trusty HP LX200 plamtop, which I use as a
console for things
like Sun servers when the odd datacenter trip is required by the job.
It's small, tiny, and is happy
to use 2xAA batteries, and has a built in terminal program, just barely
a vt102 clone, but good
enough. (It's also got Lotus123, and quicken for DOS, etc.) If you
hunt one of these down
be sure to get a serial cable for it, as they're non-standard.
If you've got some sub/mini notebook around with a serial port, even if
the batteries are shot, rig
it so it boots into something like Telix, minicom, or hyperterminal, and
you're set. No need to
mess with ROMs or what not.
If you really want to get rid of the hard drive, or if the hard drive is
dead and beyond replacing,
you could look into replacing it with some sort of flash memory. Some
of those will
boot off flash, if they do, you're all set. Boot up DOS and Telix, and
rock on, or better yet
throw a mini-linux distro on there and fire up minicom - no need for XWin.
If you must, you can boot Linux from a disk-on-chip.
See: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8844506693.html
For DOS Telix see, but it's expensive, as compared with a mini-linux
distro with minicom + lrzsz.
see: http://www.telix.com/delta/deltacom/tfd/index.html
1:09 p.m.
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 03:26:58PM -0500, Ray Arachelian wrote:
M H Stein wrote:
>-----------------
>A moot distinction; what's the difference? If you must have a terminal box
>instead of just running your vintage hardware from the computer on your
>desk, just take an old laptop, remove the (perhaps broken) display, stick
>a USB or Flash disk in it to boot and run emulation S/W from, plug in your
>keyboard, display and RS-232 cable and how's that different in any real
>sense from a fancy terminal? CPU, EEPROM, RAM and I/O; sounds the
>same to me, and probably free...
One of the reasons I still maintain dumb terminals is that I don't have
to worry about OS issues, about boot times, bugs in terminal emulators
(or lack of emulation of historic terminal bugs), features that I occasionally
use like VT100 double-high-double-wide or an EDT keypad.
I am periperally (no pun intended) interested in a generic hobby-level,
*documented* small terminal core. I don't really care about the processor
or FPGAs or whatever. Cost is an issue. Unless it's really cheap, I'll
just keep using real terminals or full-on PCs for terminal access for the
forseeable future - and by cheap, I mean well under $200. I've bought
usable laptops (600MHz, 512MB, Ethernet, USB, Firewire...) for less than
half of that this year.
That's exactly what I do. I've got a couple
of old mini notebooks that
I use as terminals. They're
worthless for anything else as they're ancient and would only run
something like win95, so I set'em
up to boot up in Hyperterm.
I am already doing that, but with even older hardware - an 8-bit Zenith
laptop with dual 720K floppies, booting DOS 3.3 and running Kermit. At
least it's better emulation than Hyperterm (which IMO is terrible), and
since I have a Xircom PE-3 and DOS packet drivers, I can also slap this
terminal on a network and telnet around (not that most modern networks
*want* you to telnet around anymore). The only thing I want to do with
Win95 is play ancient games, and Win98 does a better job of that for me
(but that's another topic).
If you must, you can boot Linux from a disk-on-chip.
See: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8844506693.html
This is certainly one way to go, and probably easier than hacking
BIOS ROMs. I have seen DoC, but haven't done much with it. All of
my embedded Linux hacking has been with CF adapters and 2-16MB flash
cards.
But a VT100 is still ready faster.
-ethan
P.S. - we still have a few dumb terminals around at Pole, and we still
use them to talk to some of our embedded gear.
--
Ethan Dicks, A-333-S Current South Pole Weather at 4-Nov-2007 at 20:50 Z
South Pole Station
PSC 468 Box 400 Temp -40.2 F (-40.1 C) Windchill -66.6 F (-54.8 C)
APO AP 96598 Wind 9.3 kts Grid 52 Barometer 687.4 mb (10350 ft)
Ethan.Dicks at usap.gov http://penguincentral.com/penguincentral.html
1:45 p.m.
This is certainly one way to go, and probably easier
than hacking
BIOS ROMs. I have seen DoC, but haven't done much with it. All of
my embedded Linux hacking has been with CF adapters and 2-16MB flash
cards.
But a VT100 is still ready faster.
-ethan
P.S. - we still have a few dumb terminals around at Pole, and we still
use them to talk to some of our embedded gear.
Some of the embedded arm boards from Technologic Solutions have a
fast boot kernel and are ready in 1.6 seconds or less. I don't even
think an LCD would init that quick. : )
It takes a few more seconds if you want the full apache, services, etc...
Grant
6032
days inactive
6032
days old
3 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
dm561＠torfree.net -
ethan.dicks＠usap.gov -
grant＠stockly.com -
ray＠arachelian.com