Any modern dumb terminals?
John Crane
because of the boot up & shutdown times, which are sometimes longer than the
communication session itself. And I really don't want to lug around a bulky
"vintage" terminal - glass tube and all.
It seems it would be easy to build a color lcd screen, keyboard, and serial
port without all the hassle of a full-fledged OS. Has anyone seen
something like this?
So far, I've tried:
1) HP200LX palmtop - be serious. If you're not in sunlight, you can't read
it.
2) Notebook PC with "sleep mode" - batteries are drained even in sleep mode.
Sometimes the machine winds up out of juice when I need it.
3) A DOS laptop - boot times are better, but the screen is still lousy.
Haven't found a DOS laptop with a good color screen .
-J
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
There is no reason you couldn't take any laptop that has a screen that
you like, and install a minimal DOS system on it, along with your
favorite DOS terminal emulation program. Should boot in seconds. The
biggest problem might be finding a DOS video driver for any reasonably
modern laptop.
--
ArarghMail903 at [drop the 'http://www.' from ->] http://www.arargh.com
BCET Basic Compiler Page: http://www.arargh.com/basic/index.html
To reply by email, remove the extra stuff from the reply address.
Roger Ivie
> The
> biggest problem might be finding a DOS video driver for any reasonably
> modern laptop.
"DOS video driver"? I know what each of those words means, but I can't
figure them out all put together in a row like that.
--
roger ivie
ri...@ridgenet.net
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
wrote:
>On 2009-03-24, ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com wrote:
>> The
>> biggest problem might be finding a DOS video driver for any reasonably
>> modern laptop.
>
>"DOS video driver"? I know what each of those words means, but I can't
>figure them out all put together in a row like that.
Perhaps not.
How about: 'Some means to use the full size of the video display'?
Most of the laptops that I have seen don't use the full screen in DOS
mode. Some have a Fn-key sequence to stretch the video. Since I am
not all that fond of laptops I have not researched the available
options.
Jeff Jonas
>because of the boot up & shutdown times, which are sometimes longer than the
>communication session itself. And I really don't want to lug around a bulky
>"vintage" terminal - glass tube and all.
> It seems it would be easy to build a color lcd screen,
> keyboard, and serial port without all the hassle of a full-fledged OS.
Yes, there were laptop style terminals.
I have one, but it's out of reach (I can't recall the mfgr).
It has a passive LCD screen, no backlight.
Probably AC power only (no battery).
>3) A DOS laptop - boot times are better, but the screen is still lousy.
>Haven't found a DOS laptop with a good color screen .
Ah, that's a harder requirement to meet.
I used a 80486 laptop with PC-DOS and PROCOMM for terminal emulation.
It emulates a nice variety of terminals
(particularly useful for old embedded equipment
that supports only 2-4 terminal types via DIP switch settings).
And it's better than a real terminal;
allowing screen scrolling, logging, and file transfer,
even chat scripts with the ASPECT programming language.
[admittedly, the keyboard may not have all the terminal specific keys
but can emulate them via key mapping]
Richard
"John Crane" <jc email> spake the secret code
<1OSdnYA9Qb-13VXU...@pghconnect.com> thusly:
>I sometimes have the need for a "dumb terminal". I hate using a laptop
>because of the boot up & shutdown times [...]
Some possibilities:
TI silent 700 terminals. These come up on ebay for cheap prices
fairly regularly. These are print terminals that print on FAX thermal
paper. They are designed to be portable and can weigh as little as
10-15 lbs with carrying case. They have serial and phone jack
connections, usually with a 300/1200/2400 baud internal modem.
There were a number of terminals that were VT100 compatible with an
LCD display and keyboard. I have one that is made by Random
corporation called the Colleague. Yes, that means I have a Random
Colleague. That company obviously has a sense of humor.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>
Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>
Mark Hobley
> The biggest problem might be finding a DOS video driver for any reasonably
> modern laptop.
Most video displays for PC compatible laptops are capable of text mode, VGA
graphics modes, and may even provide Vesa SVGA extended modes from within the
BIOS, so no specific driver is needed.
I doubt there would be a problem, unless your laptop was made by Apple
(in which case, it would not run DOS anyway).
Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
Linux User: #370818 http://markhobley.yi.org/
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
markh...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com (Mark Hobley) wrote:
>ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com wrote:
>> The biggest problem might be finding a DOS video driver for any reasonably
>> modern laptop.
>
>Most video displays for PC compatible laptops are capable of text mode, VGA
>graphics modes, and may even provide Vesa SVGA extended modes from within the
>BIOS, so no specific driver is needed.
The problem is that most laptop displays are bigger than 640x480. The
trick is to get DOS to use the WHOLE display, which in CO80 mode it
usually does not.
>
>I doubt there would be a problem, unless your laptop was made by Apple
>(in which case, it would not run DOS anyway).
>
>Mark.
--
Mark Hobley
> The problem is that most laptop displays are bigger than 640x480. The
> trick is to get DOS to use the WHOLE display, which in CO80 mode it
> usually does not.
Really? What about in 640x480 graphics mode? Don't they just stretch
the picture to fill the screen?
What about using VESA display modes?
Maybe there is a bios extension that provides full screen mode.
If not, you could always use a laptop with a traditional 4:3 screen aspect
ratio.
ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com
markh...@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com (Mark Hobley) wrote:
>ArarghMai...@not.at.arargh.com wrote:
>
>> The problem is that most laptop displays are bigger than 640x480. The
>> trick is to get DOS to use the WHOLE display, which in CO80 mode it
>> usually does not.
>
>Really? What about in 640x480 graphics mode? Don't they just stretch
>the picture to fill the screen?
>
>What about using VESA display modes?
>
>Maybe there is a bios extension that provides full screen mode.
>
>If not, you could always use a laptop with a traditional 4:3 screen aspect
>ratio.
I have three of those. IIRC, none of them use the full screen by
default in DOS mode. Two if them have keyboard commands to stretch
the display the whole way, which is not always nicely readable. I
don't remember about the third. I don't know what VESA modes they
have, but since they are pretty old, probably not many. Besides, how
many VESA test modes are there? Not many. And the graphic modes are
usually pretty piggy. Especially on a 486 which is what the 701C is.
In any case, I dont use any of them anyway.
Vebjorn Ljosa
> I sometimes have the need for a "dumb terminal". I hate using a laptop
> because of the boot up & shutdown times, which are sometimes longer than the
> communication session itself. And I really don't want to lug around a bulky
> "vintage" terminal - glass tube and all.
>
> It seems it would be easy to build a color lcd screen, keyboard, and serial
> port without all the hassle of a full-fledged OS. Has anyone seen
> something like this?
The VT525 is a VT terminal without a monitor. You plug in any SVGA
monitor. I have never used one, but together with an LCD, it seems
like it would be a pleasant terminal.
Vebjorn
John Crane
<ArarghMai...@NOT.AT.Arargh.com> wrote in message
news:57tgs4d1k2jvvajsh...@4ax.com...
I know what you mean.
I have a Sony Viao running Win XP and the DOS app "Procomm" on full screen
only occupies a small central region of the display.
However, when I run the same app on an HP820 running Win 95, full screen
mode gets me a real "full screen".
-J
Mark Hobley
> only occupies a small central region of the display.
>
> However, when I run the same app on an HP820 running Win 95, full screen
> mode gets me a real "full screen".
That's because Microsoft Windows XP emulates the text mode using graphics,
whereas Microsoft Windows '95 uses the on chip text mode.
The on chip text mode usually does fill the display normally, unless it
is a widescreen laptop. I wonder which chipsets do not display full
screen in normal text mode.
Also terminal emulation written for MSDOS may not run properly on
Microsoft Windows XP, due to incompatibilities with the serial port
handling, etc. (Although dosbox may be a workaround in this case.)
Keith F. Lynch
> "John Crane" <jc email> wrote:
>> laptop because of the boot up & shutdown times [...]
> Some possibilities:
> TI silent 700 terminals. These come up on ebay for cheap prices
> fairly regularly. These are print terminals that print on FAX
> thermal paper.
A bad choice. The paper is expensive, if it's even still available.
It's uppercase only. And the maximum speed is 300 bps.
(It was a TI Silent 700 terminal which I was falsely convicted of
stealing 32 years ago.)
> They are designed to be portable and can weigh as little as
> 10-15 lbs with carrying case. They have serial and phone jack
> connections, usually with a 300/1200/2400 baud internal modem.
They have a 300 bps internal modem, and an accoustic coupler to
which you attach the telephone handset. This was because when it
was designed it was illegal to electrically connect anything to a
telephone line, except phone-company-provided equipment such as
the telephone which you leased from the phone company.
> There were a number of terminals that were VT100 compatible with
> an LCD display and keyboard. I have one that is made by Random
> corporation called the Colleague. Yes, that means I have a Random
> Colleague. That company obviously has a sense of humor.
I have one of those too, along with carrying case, internal modem,
power supply, and manual. It looks and weighs like a laptop computer.
It emulates a VT220. Anyone want to buy it? Make me an offer.
I normally use a VT420. That's what I'm typing this on now. See
http://keithlynch.net/pics/ for pictures of my apartment, including
the VT420 and me using it.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Richard
"Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> spake the secret code
<grtktf$fod$1...@panix1.panix.com> thusly:
>Richard <> wrote:
>> "John Crane" <jc email> wrote:
>>> I sometimes have the need for a "dumb terminal". I hate using a
>>> laptop because of the boot up & shutdown times [...]
>
>> Some possibilities:
>
>> TI silent 700 terminals. These come up on ebay for cheap prices
>> fairly regularly. These are print terminals that print on FAX
>> thermal paper.
>
>A bad choice. The paper is expensive, if it's even still available.
$17 for 98' in 6 rolls. Yes its more expensive than plain paper, but
it is what it is.
>It's uppercase only. And the maximum speed is 300 bps.
Depends on the model. Silent 700 comes in a variety of models. The
upper case only/300bps model you describe is the most ancient. The
later models all support lower case and 1200 or 2400 bps modems. The
speed limitation on these is going to be mostly the printing and not
the comm. speed anyway. Most people can't read faster than 300 bps,
but these kinds of terminals are not appropriate for "full screen"
"forms" based applications.
>They have a 300 bps internal modem, and an accoustic coupler to
>which you attach the telephone handset.
Again, you are describing the oldest model in the series. The newer
ones use an internal modem, not an acoustic coupler and are smaller
and lighter. See ebay item # 250402648706 for an example of the later
models. (That's $30 buy-it-now.)
Keith F. Lynch
> Silent 700 comes in a variety of models. The upper case only/300bps
> model you describe is the most ancient. The later models all support
> lower case and 1200 or 2400 bps modems. The speed limitation on these
> is going to be mostly the printing and not the comm. speed anyway.
That's surprising. As I recall, it took so long to do a carriage
return and line feed that even at 300 bps it had to go faster than
normal for the first 20 characters or so of the next line.
> Most people can't read faster than 300 bps, ...
Nonsense. I can *type* faster than 300 bps, at least in short bursts.
I found typing very frustrating before terminals had N-key rollover.
I use my VT420 at 9600 bps rather than 19200, as that's about as fast
as I can read, and since at 9600 it will work without flow control.
(I don't want software flow control since ^S and ^Q are Emacs
commands. I don't want hardware flow control since it would mean
running more wires, and since it would interfere with my setup in
which I have two VT420 terminals in parallel such that anything that
appears on one will appear on the other and I can type on either one.
One is next to my couch. I use it for posting. The other is over my
treadmill. I use it for reading. I got them, a third VT420, a DEC
Alpha, a brace of Vaxen, and other hardware and furniture in lieu of
salary when a former employer imploded.)
My friends who have long since abandoned 56kb modems for broadband
ridicule me for still using 9600 bps. But it works for me. But even
I find 300 bps painful. I always have. In the 300 bps days, I used
to print out stuff overnight rather than trying to read it in realtime.
Paul Potter
> I normally use a VT420. That's what I'm typing this on now. See
> http://keithlynch.net/pics/ for pictures of my apartment, including
> the VT420 and me using it.
That's my kind of place. Love the retro hardware.
Paul Potter