Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 12/4/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: net.info-terms,net.wanted Subject: Re: VT100 Compatible Terminals Message-ID: <1653@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Feb-84 21:39:56 EST Article-I.D.: rlgvax.1653 Posted: Fri Feb 3 21:39:56 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 02:54:59 EST References: <918@cwruecmp.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 26 > We are looking to get a couple of VT100 compatible terminals... > These terminals require the following characteristics: . . . *) no brain damage (i.e. 'magic cookies') The ANSI X3.64 standard, which the VT100 adheres to, in effect says that magic cookies do not exist; any terminal with magic cookies can't be X3.64 compatible. (Furthermore, they can't even put the magic cookie in the display memory and not show it on the screen; they *must* implement the screen image so that it appears to the program talking to the terminal as if each screen position had a character and an attribute set, and that any character put on the screen gets the "current" attributes which are set by the SGR sequence.) As such, if the TeleVideo 970 has magic cookies, it's blatantly not VT100 compatible and not even X3.64 compatible, and they would probably not sell any after they were found out. I suspect you're safe if they claim VT100 compatiblility - however, the C. Itoh CIT-101 has a non-VT100 compatible printer port, which they had *no excuse* doing since there is a spec for an auxiliary output port in X3.64. First Datamedia used it, *then* DEC put a printer port on the VT100 - but both implementations were compatible because they were both based on X3.64. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy