AT&T Joining OSF (actually: BD

[irene at pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk]

/* Written  7:13 am  Aug 28, 1988 by gwyn at smoke.ARPA in pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk:comp.unix.wizards */
/* ---------- "Re: AT&T Joining OSF (actually: BD " ---------- */
In article <3262 at edm.UUCP> rroot at edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes:
>.. You almost make it sound like it takes almost half the 750's CPU power
>just to handle your keyboard input.  Comments like that can scare some people.
>A 750 may be 'slow' by today's standards, but they're not THAT bad :-).

Yes, they are.  It takes about 30% of a 750 just to output data at 9600 baud
via a DZ11 interface, using the Berkeley implementation (noticeably better
with streams, or with a KMC11-B I/O processor).  And running an application
in "raw mode" causes so many context switches per character that the system
is noticeably loaded just getting characters to the application.

>In general: I'd much rather put up with the, relatively minor, cost of char-
>at-a-time input than be stuck with the BrainDead'isms of a system that treats
>terminals like card punches with a VDT attached.

I seem to recall this discussion started as "where should input editing be
done".  The "editing in the terminal" I mentioned did not imply "block mode";
that notion was brought up by others.  In fact I routinely edit text in my
terminal before sending it to any of our operating systems, some of which have
no special support for intelligent terminals.  I just snarf what I need with
the mouse by highlighting it from any window buffer (scrolling via an
"elevator" if necessary) with the left button depressed, edit it locally into
what I need (using highlighting with "cut", "snarf", and "paste" menu items,
also typing in new text), and "send" it to the appropriate window (just as
though it had been typed on the keyboard) via another menu option.  This is
entirely built into the AT&T model 630 terminal and can be used any time
during normal ASCII terminal operations; at least one window is available with
this feature from the moment the terminal is powered on (unlike the 5620).
(The 630 also supports multiple fonts and down-loaded applications, such as
the "sam" editor that really is a general-purpose text editor by design, but
that's not germane to this particular issue.)  Editing works great, the host is
unaware of it, and I don't know how I could stand being without it.  I know of
no other terminal in the $2000 price range that is nearly as nice as the 630.
/* End of text from pyr1.cs.ucl.ac.uk:comp.unix.wizards */