Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sjuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!floyd!whuxle!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!akgua!psuvax1!burdvax!sjuvax!jss From: jss@sjuvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.emacs Subject: Re: 5420 follies - sure this thing is vt100-compatible!!! Message-ID: <359@sjuvax.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Jun-84 07:17:35 EDT Article-I.D.: sjuvax.359 Posted: Thu Jun 7 07:17:35 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 13-Jun-84 00:44:25 EDT References: <106@sri-arpa.UUCP> Organization: Saint Josephs Univ. Phila., Pa. Lines: 16 [aren't you hungry???] yes, but as someone has already put forth, the 5420 is *NOT* VT100 compatible. It is compatible with the ANSI standard (I forget the number) from which the vt100 *DEVIATES* in a few minor ways..... Why wont this gritching about the 5420 go away? It is a good terminal with its own merits and disadvantages, and people should probably consider it as such. It doesn't claim to be vt100 compatible. It claims to conform to the appropriate ANBI standard, which it does. Jon Shapiro Haverford College Haverford, Pa. The opinios expressed herein are solely mine, etc, etc...