VT100 and/or VT105 rescued from scrap

[Paul Koning]

> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
> 
> On 2015-10-22 16:32, Paul Koning wrote:
>> 
>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Johnny Billquist <bqt at Update.UU.SE> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ...
>>> The VT100 is field upgradeable to a VT101 (I think) or a VT102 (I know). However, the VT102 is not the same as a VT100 with the added AVO and printer. Functionally they are the same, but inside they will look different.
>> 
>> That doesn't sound right.
>> 
>> The way I remember it is that the VT100 comes in several configurations (for example AVO or not) and you can field modify it from one to another.
>> 
>> On the other hand, the VT101 and VT102 are fixed configs (that is, not intended to be field upgradable), roughly matching the base and AVO versions of the VT100 in functionality.
>> 
>> It may be that you could, with enough knowledge, turn a VT101 into a VT102 or vice versa, but that wasn't a supported operation from what I remember.
> 
> Paul, I think you just said the same thing I did. Did you misunderstand me, or did I do a typo somewhere?

No, you said that the VT100 is field upgradeable to the VT101 and/or VT102.  And I said that there are several VT100 variants, and that a VT100-xx is field upgradeable to a VT100-yy.  But no VT101 or VT102 is field upgradeable to anything else, nor is a VT100 field upgradeable to a VT101 or VT102.

To elaborate: the VT101 and VT102 are a generation after the VT100, each fixed config.  I'm guessing that the fixed config thing was done, as well as the other changes in the details, to reduce cost.  Cost reducing a product while leaving its features largely untouched was a standard thing to do at DEC (and for that matter is a standard thing to do at any manufacturing organization).

	paul