vt100 terminfo with padding for an actual vt100?

Ethan Dicks ethan.dicks at gmail.com
Tue Sep 6 16:52:54 CDT 2016

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Paul Koning <paulkoning at comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 4, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Fritz Mueller <fritzm at fritzm.org> wrote:
>> Hi all —
>> I’m trying to run a real-deal vt100 on a serial port connected to Linux... and 19200 is a hopeless mess.
> 19200?  I didn't think the VT100 supported that.

We never had luck with it on VAXen and hundreds of feet of wire in the
1980s, but we _did_ have 100% rock-solid performance at 9600.  Of
course, we also had few genuine VT100s as opposed to VT101, VT102,
VT220, and CiTOH 101 terminals.

I do recall that the real, original VT100 was _not_ as capable as any
of its predecessors, supporting the recent comments in this thread
about "not the same as a VT102".  I would agree.

> I have never heard of "padding" for any DEC video terminals other than the VT05.  And I have never seen messed up characters at 9600 baud.

I never had to fiddle any sort of padding characters (on
non-printing/CRT devices).  Our oldest terminals _were_ the original
VT100, and probably represented at most 5% of our installed terminals.


More information about the cctalk mailing list