spacewar at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 15:40:11 CDT 2018
On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:14 PM, Carlo Pisani <carlojpisani at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > cause it's the simplest, I guess
> > The VT100 was quite complicated compared to contemporary terminals at the
> > time of its introduction.
> why do you say that?
> a vt100 terminal requires only a text VDU (video display unit) with
> hw-scrolling support, and a piece of software to support the VT100
> protocol (escape-codes decoded into action for the VDU).
> in fact, my Digital VT200 comes with an ASIC chip for the VDU, while
> the software side runs on an Intel 8051 MPU that directly interfaces
> the keyboard, the VDU, and the serial line
> this doesn't look complex
Not complex by today's standards, no.
Compare the VT100 circuitry to the circuitry of contemporary terminals
(1978). Compare the VT100 "programming information" to that for
contemporary terminals. There might have been some other terminals that
complex, but it was way more complex than common terminals of the day.
More information about the cctech