Why use a character-cell video terminal? Pros and cons, and ruminations: ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Message-ID: Organization: University of California, Berkeley Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2006 11:10:50 PDT From: RISKS List Owner Subject: Risks Digest 24.33 RISKS-LIST: Risks-Forum Digest Tuesday 20 June 2006 Volume 24 : Issue 33 ACM FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS (comp.risks) Peter G. Neumann, moderator, chmn ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy This issue is archived at as ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:20:56 -0500 From: Al Mac Subject: Microsoft Patches crash IBM Midrange Consoles "Windows Patches break Operations Console of IBM midrange platform." In the olden days of networks, a dumb terminal might have been used for IT staff to manage large computer networks. In recent years the move has been to use a PC for that function, which of course needs Windows patches. The latest round of MS patches has busted the ability of IBM Consoles to do their primary tasks. V#R# is version of IBM operating system affected. http://www.itjungle.com/tfh/tfh061906-story05.html . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Four Hundred: iSeries and AS/400 Insight "Windows Patches Kill Operations Console on V5R3 and V5R4" by Timothy Prickett Morgan (published: June 19, 2006) A warning from the OS/400 community: According to a number of people who applied patches to their Windows machines last week, as Microsoft instructed them to patch on Tuesday, as soon as their patches were applied, the operations console links into their OS/400 V5R3 and i5/OS V5R4 systems stopped working. Jeff Crosby reported his troubled with "Mikeysoft" patches and operations console relating to i5/OS V5R4 on the Midrange-L user group, while Thomas Hauber reported problems with the Windows Update and the operations console linking into OS/400 V5R3 over at the "comp.sys.ibm.as400.misc" newsgroup. http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l/200606/msg00787.html http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.ibm.as400.misc/browse_thread/thread/91483bc2af861f4d/fff1727bfed0deb5?lnk=raot#fff1727bfed0deb5 As IBM's iSeries Operation Console site explains, this is not the first time Microsoft has stepped on this software. Security patches to Windows NT killed links to the iSeries and AS/400, and patches to Windows 2000 that came in Service Pack 4 also caused problems. Microsoft issued a hotfix patch that resolved both issues in these cases. I searched the Microsoft KnowledgeBase just before we went to press and did not find any fixes yet. http://www-03.ibm.com/servers/eserver/iseries/access/console/ ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Newsgroups: comp.terminals References: <6em0nc$aln$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Message-ID: To: mcnally@mindspring.com Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 11:51:58 -0500 From: "Richard S. Shuford" Subject: Lynx Web browser (was: Newbie question regarding vt100) On Tue, 17 Mar 1998, in message <6em0nc$aln$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, "Kristin McNally/Moon Communications" wrote: > > I have been asked to research the possibility of displaying HTML > documents on real VT100 terminals (not emulators). I know enough to > know that only text would be displayed. > > My question is this: is there a way to easily convert the HTML > documents to something that would display on these VT100 terminals? > Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. You will be pleased to learn that the software you need has been invented and is even available for "free" (more or less). What you need is the "Lynx" web browser: see http://lynx.browser.org/ and/or http://www.crl.com/~subir/lynx.html Version 2.7.2 (1998-01-08) is the current release for Unix and VMS. There are test verions for other platforms. 2.7.2 is claimed to have support for SSL, multiple bookmark pages, and cookies. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Path: cs.utk.edu!gatech!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com !nntpd.lkg.dec.com!dial20_port2.mro.dec.com!user From: sichel@hannah.enet.dec.com (Peter Sichel) Newsgroups: comp.terminals Subject: Re: Future of Terminals Date: Tue, 15 Aug 1995 17:51:36 -0400 Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 55 Message-ID: References: <40otrh$57m@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial20_port2.mro.dec.com In article <40otrh$57m@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu>, rt@astro.ocis.temple.edu (Voyager) wrote: > > I would like to get a scope of where terminals will be in 5 years. I > mean, it seems as though many people are using PCs as clients. I find > that terminals are a cheaper and more efficient way. Though the market for terminals is clearly changing, they are not going away for exactly the reasons you like them. They are a low- cost, efficient solution for a range of applications ("transaction processing"--most "knowledge workers" have moved to other platforms). As for what's happening in the market and what to expect: - The market for serial asynchronous text terminals is declining at around 10% per year. Somewhat faster in the U.S., but slower in Europe. Depending on who's forecast you favor, the rate of decline could increase (faster migration to PCs) or decrease (most appropriate applications have already migrated, leaving a mature installed base). - Market is 2-3 million units this year. - Digital eliminated the price umbrella for ANSI terminals when it announced the VT510/Dorio-10 in September of 1993 with a *list* price starting under $400. Lower prices, lower margins, and lower volume are driving industry consolidation. There is only room for a small number of large profitable vendors and some smaller niche vendors. Expect most others to get out of the business. Expect engineering investment/development for basic text terminals to slow since the products are already mature and feature rich. The business is still profitable and important to the remaining large vendors which will ensure good prices and availability for several years to come. I don't see PCs quickly replacing text terminals at the low end for these reasons: (1) basic economics--terminals are a lot less expensive for comparable displays (2) Simpler and more durable; average service life is 6 years for VTs versus 3 years for PCs (before upgraded or replaced) (3) Even though PC prices are falling, PC software is driving hardware requirements up (mainstream DOS and Windows apps are requiring more and more RAM). On the other hand, PCs benefit from low software cost, strong mind share and availability, and low entry cost for smaller systems. -- - Peter Sichel C&P Video Terminals Architecture Digital Equipment Corporation ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.terminals Path: utkcs2!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net !news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com !cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net !feeder.chicago.cic.net!news.campus.rpslmc.edu!sispro.sis.rpslmc.edu! From: Roger J. Allen Subject: Re: Looking for information on DUMB TERMINAL technologies Date: 19 Feb 1997 22:23:53 GMT Organization: Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center Lines: 26 Message-ID: <5efuhp$ote@cwis.campus.rpslmc.edu> In comp.terminals James Carlson wrote: > > In article <01bc1cef$01fab3e0$3811ea9e@romaniukm.logica.co.uk>, > "Ashley Holland" writes: > |> > |> It must be easier to use a terminal emulator. There's even one that comes > |> free from Microsoft!! > Uh, huh. Yeah. Best part is that it doesn't work right. Ever try to > send a break from Hyperterm? > Terminals fill a role > > * about zero boot time > * very fast scrolling > * easy to lug around > * close to zero emulation defects > > Those things generally can't be said about PC terminal emulators. Also, minimal maintenance. No upgradeitis. No licensing. Only one power cord. Thermally cool. No moving parts. Quiet. Cheap! Maybe no games (nethack is still fun :-) ), so real work gets done. No one wants to steal it! -- Roger J. Allen Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center System Administrator Chicago, IL USA Surgical Information Systems Voice: (312)-942-4825 Internet: rja@sis.rpslmc.edu FAX: (312)-942-3036 ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.terminals Path: stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu !howland.erols.net!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!jobone!dailyplanet.srl.ford.com !eccws1.dearborn.ford.com!sys2.ped.pto.ford.com!PATTEEUW Date: 20 Feb 1997 09:47:22 GMT Organization: Ford Motor Co., AVT-CAPE, Dearborn, MI Message-ID: <5eh6ja$ifp3@eccws1.dearborn.ford.com> References: <5e7gd6$6po$1@europa.frii.com> From: patteeuw@sys2.ped.pto.ford.com (Jack Patteeuw) Subject: Re: Looking for information on DUMB TERMINAL technologies > 2. What is the current state of the industry and where is it heading? It's not dead yet, but it going that way. Too bad, because I'm convinced that for most things people don't really need a graphic (read that Windows) interface. 98% of the time I use my 21" monitor to display multiple xterms. > 3. What industry category do dumb terminals fall under? The FCC still classifies them as "computing devices". Don't get me wrong, for years I had a sign saying "You'll put a PC on my desk when you can pry my cold dead fingers off of my VT100 !" I wouldn't work anywhere that didn't have a least a couple of VT2xx-5xx (the VT100 is just too big) terminals around for "emergencies". When your UNIX box won't boot because of a problem with the video subsystem, you can almost always get it running through a serial port. The real death of "dumb terminals" was caused by insufficient bandwidth from host to display. RS-232 pretty much limited you to 9.6 or maybe 19.2 kbps. IBM's 3270 had this problem beat, but the cable and terminal controller and other hardware made it not cost effective. Also, have you ever really tried to edit a program on a page mode terminal ? Yuk. There were attempts at graphic serial terminals. Tektronix made several including the DVST 4010 and 4014. Latter they came out with raster-scan color tube (41xx if I recall). All were very expensive. They grew up into X Window devices with Ethernet for communication. Now you can put a PC on someone's desk and they can run Kermit for VTxxx emulation, one of a dozen 3270 emulators, and X Windows all at the same time !! Jack Patteeuw ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.terminals Path: utkcs2!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!cs.utk.edu!gatech!howland.erols.net!panix !news.panix.com!not-for-mail Date: 5 Mar 1997 17:52:41 -0500 Organization: Jeff's House of Electronic Parts Message-ID: <5fktfq$dei@panix.com> References: <5e7gd6$6po$1@europa.frii.com> <01bc24c2$044f6a20$abd60fcf@francisc> From: jeffj@panix.com (Jeff Jonas) Subject: Re: Looking for information on DUMB TERMINAL technologies In article <01bc24c2$044f6a20$abd60fcf@francisc> "Francis" writes: > > My view, I own a company that sells a *lot* of terminal emulators (more and > more each year) so I'm a little bit biased but then I've been involved with > terminals and emulators for 15+ years. I have a Wyse-50 terminal that I use as the console for my single board Z80 CP/M systems, so I take notice of all the places I still see Wyse terminals in use, such as as cash registers/Point-Of-Sales terminals at movie theatres, cafeterias and such. They have a pass-through printer port, so printer and terminal share the single serial line (RS232, or current loop). I can see the advantage: with one high-end-PC or micro/mini running a decent O.S. there's instant synchronization of all terminals. One machine to upgrade instead of upgrading every terminal and risking them getting out of sync versions. The downside is the wiring, with 4 pairs of wires per terminal for proper hardware handshaking (to logout the user upeon turning the terminal off, etc). As the fates would have it, I now work at Apertus (www.apertus.com) (formerly Systems Strategies Inc of NY and Lee Data of MN). The main products are making new ways to get to data on IBM mainframe systems ("legacy systems connectivity" is the politically correct phrase now). Until recently, the main product was emulating 3270 and 5250 terminals via server/clients with TCP/IP between them. Even web servers and data servers look like 3270/5250 terminals to the mainframe applications! So that's the opposite end of the spectrum: the rooms of 3270 terminals are being replaced by PCs running terminal emulators and other software that allows combining data from several sources, as well as easier upgrades and nicer displays. When new terminal features or models come out, it's a matter up upgrading the emulator software (preferably remotely via network administration instead of poking floppies/CDs into each PC). I remember when first using Procomm on my PC, I wondered "why emulate a vt100 when I can get a real vt100". But I later learned that emulators give nicer features such as screen capture, scroll back, printer support and things that were either unavailable on the original terminals, or hard to use. > 1. For as long as users (corporations, banks, insurance co.s, finance > insitutions etc.,) have dumb terminals on their desks (and millions do > believe it or not), host developers must support applications that run on > them. Developers therefore are restricted as to what they can do with their > exisiting applications or risk cutting themselves out of large markets and > upsetting LARGE existing users. :- Thus my current job of emulating terminals and making the data available to modern software interfaces (Java, WWW servers, ...) > a.) rewite entire app (1000's man years) into a client server world and > don't sell to terminal users - see you in the year 2000 !! Thus all the support for the "legacy systems" (dinosaurs that can't adapt to modern data presentation) > b.) add hooks into host application or provide middleware > c/s GUI tools to support PC's I keep hearing how IBM mainframes don't like using TCP/IP directly, how it's faster to have a server box using SNA/SDLC to the mainframe convert to TCP/IP to clients. > 2. Why does a data entry clerk need a PC ? Why don't staff at the check out > terminals use a GUI interface ? Why did Delta introduce a GUI PC based > system for Airline check-in but run a 'dumb terminal' emulator in one of > the windows *AND* remove the mouse from all of these PC's ? All of these > are issues that face developers and end users today. From what I see, ruggedized industrial terminals tend to have specialized keyboards and I/O devices such as credit card readers that all easily interface to RS232 so dumb terminals handle them too! > 3. A dumb terminal can be 1/10th of the cost of a PC, most people think a > PC is so cheap you don't need a dumb terminal. These are the same people > that spend hours fixing and perfecting their own PC's to work, in the > mornings, in the evenings. When suddenly you get an error in the middle of > a major bank transaction that says, "General Protection Fault in system > Kernel", who do you call ? 'Ghost Busters'. No, you have a team of highly > paid network experts that manage your users and their 'desktops'. PC's also > get dated 10 times faster than terminals, try getting the 386 you bought > for your data clerk 5 years ago when PC's replaced terminals (yes even > then) to support the latest release of hyperterminal or any of the Win 95 > TE's...... Ain't going to happen, they go on the same scrap heap as the > 'other' terminals and you start all over.... until the next time !! That cuts both ways. If the existing display is adequate then I suppose a dumb terminal will stay forever. For plain test that's very readable using VGA color is barely needed. But for folks who use things like color terminals or terminals that connect to multiple hosts, then a PC might perform better since it can be programmed to transform and combine the data. Case in point: trading floors that used banks of dedicated terminals and displays are converting to Sun workstations for their ability to combine data from many sources and display them in configurable ways. Each trader can individually configure the display to be most meaningful to them. > 4. Problem now is we have to face the future potential (or hype) of > diskless PC's again (now interestingly called 'new technolgy' and renamed, > Network Computers (NC) ) !!! This means that the fatter the client (the > more the you off-load from the host application), the more unlikely you > will be able to run on these environments today. I'm optimistic that as the state of the art progresses, there will be a useful, consistent and meaningful way to use diskless workstations. Sun's been VERY successful with diskless systems for YEARS and the X-terminal market is far from dead. The Plan-9 & Inferno operating systems from Lucent (formerly Bell Labs) are an attempt to migrate towards more distributed computing environments using heterogeneous (not-the-same-maker-or-type) equipment. I see the main obstacle being the learning curve to properly apply new paradigms to solve problems (just as object oriented design and problem solving is still "just catching on"). > 5. I read the other day in PC week, that Host Applications and mainframes > and not only alive and kicking but they will have their year again in 97' - > I also found amusing something I read that redfined a defination of client > server as 'the rise and stall of client server'. Thus all the jobs fixing the year-2000 bugs :-) > For now, there is a good growth market for terminal emulation to support > the applications that work with dumb terminals (that's my business). > There's a good market for terminals, new and used. It won't be here > forever, no s/w in the PC world is but where I'm taking my company and it's > HOSTACCESS and connectivty products is where users have told me where they > want to go, be it Web, PC integration, Java, dumb terminals, middleware or > whatever, we'll be there. So I'll save my Wyse and DEC terminals for my children to inherit :-) -- Jeffrey Jonas jeffj@panix.com ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Newsgroups: comp.terminals Path: utkcs2!transfer.stratus.com!news.bbnplanet.com!nntprelay.mathworks.com !newsfeed.direct.ca!pln-w!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news3 Message-ID: <35DC0E1F.795EA612@caresystems.com> References: <6qfgks$bd3$1@sally.dma.org> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1998 04:53:03 -0700 From: "Jeremy.Rumpf" Subject: Re: P.O.S. Terminals Mike Wright wrote: > > I've noticed something at the last two computer stores I've visited. > They both have "Small Business Solutions" departments where they advocate > MS Windows, but their Point of Sale terminals are simple text terminals. > This seems somewhat hypocritical. Anyone know what sort of box these > terminals are connected to? (The stores were CompUSA and MicroCenter). > > Just curious. > Mike SCO Unix almost always dominates in the POS market. Most businesses with Wyse or terminal-based registers have a moderately powered PC somewhere cranking SCO. (Linux is making strong grounds in this market. Mainly because it's rock solid/low cost combo.....) The stores offer Windows because it's easy for their moderately retarded sales staff to pitch to customers, whereas none of them have any brains when it comes to real "business solutions". For a funny laugh, you should ask them someday about their POS system. You'll see the oddest looking faces ever. Jeremy Rumpf Senior Operations Caresystems Corp. ------------------------------- ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Newsgroups: comp.arch.embedded,comp.terminals Path: stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!news.he.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com !news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com !feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex !netcom.net.uk!data.ramona.vix.com!sonysjc!sonybc!newsjunkie.ans.net !newsfeeds.ans.net!xylogics.com!xylogics.com!not-for-mail Organization: Bay Networks Incorporated Message-ID: <5eda8f$l99@atlas.xylogics.com> References: <5e7gd6$6po$1@europa.frii.com> <330c6ccc.23011458@news.alt.net> <5e9se5$ghp$1@europa.frii.com> <5ec5j3$99d@atlas.xylogics.com> <01bc1cef$01fab3e0$3811ea9e@romaniukm.logica.co.uk> Date: 18 Feb 1997 17:25:19 -0500 From: carlson@xylogics.com (James Carlson) Subject: Re: Looking for information on DUMB TERMINAL technologies In article , bomr@triumf.ca (R Nussbaumer) writes: |> |> I regularly use [a VT-100 emulation], |> and running on a '386, it will work *better* than the real |> thing, which I was forced to use once, briefly. Better?! Hmm. [Emulations are] often incompatible in subtle ways. Try running vttest against it some time. Try using the obscure VT320 save/restore configuration commands. Try playing with double-wide/ double-high characters. There are lots of fun things wrong with most emulators. I agree that some work reasonably well, but I've yet to see one that was right on the mark. Generally, terminal manufacturers have more time and money to get this right. |> What James says about zero boot time is true, however I would dispute his |> claims about other problems of emulators. Laptop PC's will run most |> emulators quite nicely, and quickly, although LCD's are not optimum for |> viewing scrolling text. Not necessarily so if you're using any of the interesting features, like character insert/delete, or international character support. They're often very poorly implemented, or missing entirely. |> Given the added versatilty (up/down loading, macro scripting, |> logging/capturing, etc.), I think emulators are the terminals of choice, |> especially in the embedded systems development arena. Yes, they're nice for that. I wouldn't knock them there. (I usually use an xterm, since it's *much* nicer than a PC, but the point is the same.) If you have to use the function keys, though, or have standard VT220 user-defined keys, or use the odd printer modes, terminals are just plain better. -- James Carlson , Prin Engr Tel: +1 508 916 4351 Bay Networks - Annex I/F Develop. / 8 Federal ST +1 800 225 3317 Mail Stop BL08-05 / Billerica MA 01821-3548 Fax: +1 508 916 4782 ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers Path: stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!news.er.usgs.gov!mcmcnews.er.usgs.gov!news.indiana.edu !vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.erols.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com !news.bbnplanet.com!news-xfer.netaxs.com!netaxs.com!bbs.cpcn.com!root Organization: Net Access BBS Message-ID: <5qh7em$hpv@netaxs.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.164.134.210 Originator: root@bbs.cpcn.com Date: 16 Jul 1997 01:17:10 GMT From: hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com (Lisa or Jeff) Subject: Re: Why Mainframes? > Joe Morris wrote in article > > > > IM(NS)HO one source of many problems in today's computing environment > > is that too many people, having (correctly) found it easy to tune > > their personal computer to fit their needs, don't understand that an > > enterprise-level computer system isn't something that can be created > > by scaling up a dinky little desktop system. The above is an excellent point. I think it's obvious, but a lot of PC-oriented gurus don't realize how hard it is to scale stuff up. One wrong mouse click and a PC is mis-configured and out of sync with the others, causing confusion with novice or non-technical users. Responding that "well, the users ought to be technically proficient" is not an answer. They didn't need to be with a dumb terminal. > I find it absolutely incredible that an organization will install all kinds > of PC's then do their absolutely best to turn them into dumb terminals. "Dumb terminals" appear to be very much out of fashion. I was expanding a mainframe application to new users and recommend simple cheap terminals for them (I think they're about $700 now.) That's all they needed to do their jobs. They rejected that in favor of full powered PCs, loaded with software--about $2,500 for the PC and software, plus $250 for the 3270 emulation card and software, plus installing the emulator cards and software on the PCs. 3270 type terminals plug and go. As far as I know, the users never took advantage of the PC or its software (Excell, Word, etc.) > What kinda thought processes are going on? My organization is actually > installing PC's where the A drives are locked shut!... Given all the ads in the trade press for this sort of stuff, or tools to lock out and monitor PCs tightly, I wonder too what's the deal. I think it's just because PCs are in fashion, as opposed to what they can do for a user. Most people I know who do word processing would do fine with an early simple W/P, like IBM's Writing Assistant. M/S Word is very nice and fun to play with, but I don't need to adjust font sizes and set up a table to tell my boss which week I'm taking for vacation and where I can be reached in an emergency. At home, I don't need to write to the phone company about an incorrect charge. > There are actual padlocks on the backs of the PC's so > that the end-users can't open the box and possibly by-pass the software > blocks. I'm glad I don't work for that company. > By the way, the total buy is 55,000 machines, not counting file > servers, routers, bridges, etc..... Simply incredible. Every day I hear Bill Gates accumulated another billion. Now I see why. The man's a genuis, I give him credit. He's convinced each and every one of us we MUST have a powerful PC with Windows and current Windows software. Most of us could get along with DOS 3.3, but that would be boring. Of course, we could all drive Chevy Novas or VW Beetles, but that would be boring too. Gates learned well from the auto industry. ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Date: 2002-08-13 From: Richard S. Shuford To: a person who asked for help Subject: replacing terminals > I am a small busness owner that is trying to > solve a big busness problem. We service a resturant chain that > uses Wyse 55 terminals in their kitchen, via a RS232 port on a PC. > When we set them up we set them for VT100 emulation. > > The Chain has asked us to look in to a low cost and easy replacement > item. We are able to purchase a product called the Adds Video display > terminal that lets us use a standard VGA monitor. This product is nice > but ends up costing more then the Wyse terminal after we purchase the > monitor. > > JJ Dear JJ: I assume your "Adds" terminal is one of the ADDS brand made by Boundless: http://www.boundless.com/Text_Terminals/ADDS/ I'm not sure what this restaurant means by saying "low cost and easy replacement." As to easy replacement; replacing a simple video terminal is much easier than replacing a PC. You've got very little to configure. Not only that, for use in a kitchen, terminals are superior to a PC, because they are much simpler to operate (you never have to upgrade their software; they can't get viruses or have blue-screens-of-death) and have no moving parts (disk drives) that will eventually be fouled by cooking grease. However, you have not given me any idea how many of these terminals you need. If you've got 5 restaurants, each of which uses 3 terminals, then you've got no chance of getting economy of scale. If the 5-store chain wants to be able to buy a brand-new, off-the-shelf display at Walmart for $40 or so, which you can replace as you would a napkin dispenser, then hard reality appears quickly. On the other hand, if you are doing this project for McDonald's worldwide and you need 50,000 terminals, then perhaps a company like Keytronic (or perhaps even Boundless) would see enough profit in it to make a deal with you to provide something purpose-built. Some of the economics are discussed in: http://www.cs.utk.edu/~shuford/terminal/terminal_cost_news.txt The prices of new character-cell video terminals have pretty much leveled out; such bargains as you can get come from purchasing used or refurbished equipment. If you are actually doing this project small-scale, then the cheap way to play it would be to purchase new ADDS terminal system boxes but connect them to used VGA screens you obtain from a 2nd-hand computer dealer, or something. Aside from links to Boundless, Wyse, and VXL (the major surviving vendors of general-purpose character-cell video terminals), from my page... http://www.cs.utk.edu/~shuford/terminal/various.html ... I have links to numerous dealers, who might give you a good price. There also are some vendors of specialty terminals, but these are mostly for industrial use and carry industrial price tags. I hope this has helped you. ...RSS ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Newsgroups: comp.terminals,comp.unix.misc,comp.unix.shell,comp.os.linux.misc References: <1154952187.500146.310400@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: Organization: Stratagy Users Group Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:12:12 -0700 (PDT) From: "Richard S. Shuford" Subject: Re: Looking for terminal games written in /bin/sh or /bin/ksh fxschulte wrote: > > I am looking for games (like tetris, pac man etc) which are written in > bourne or korn shell and only require a ANSI/ASCII terminal (no X11). > Is there somewhere an archive or listing for such games? and Martin Etteldorf replied: | | Good luck. | | No, but you'd have much more luck if you'd broaden your | search to include C programs as well. Some users may not be clear on the distinction between a script interpreted *by* the user shell and a C program invoked *from* the shell to execute independently, using only a keyboard for input and a character-cell terminal screen (such as a VT100 or Wyse 60) for output. While a determined programmer might be able to code the PacMan algorithm in the Bourne shell language, that would certainly not be my choice of programming environments for such a task. If Felix would be satisfied by the alternative, an executable program run *from* the shell, then many keyboard/character-cell games were written in the period after Unix became widely available yet before a bitmapped X-Windows-screen-with-mouse became the usual user interface for Unix. (Many of these games had been originally written to run under other operating systems, such as DEC's RSTS/E, and had been already ported several times to new platforms.) In the past few years, many of these games have been reborn in versions that run on hand-held PalmOS PDAs or on Windows CE platforms. That said, I can't recall having seen his specific requests of PacMan or Tetris; these action-oriented and real-time games might be tricky to implement using only a keyboard and character-cell screen. However, many games with a more leisurely pace were devised. Look for "Rogue" and/or "Adventure". See: http://www.wichman.org/roguehistory.html I believe you can get a Z-Machine interpreter for most versions of Unix or Linux (as source code in a compressed tar archive), and use the Z-M interpreter to play all of the classic InfoCom story games, which were text-based logic puzzles of the "interactive fiction" genre which later included the graphical Myst and Riven. Such titles include: Zork (I, II, and III) Return to Zork StarCross Suspended PlanetFall One place to look for such things is: http://ww.ifarchive.org/ See also: http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Infocom/interp.html For a different kind of character-cell-terminal fun, try this musical diversion: http://alcor.concordia.ca/~smw/home/telnet_song.html ...Richard S. Shuford -- The purpose of TV shows is to hold your attention for the commercials. //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////