Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!mtune!codas!flmis06!mikel From: mikel@flmis06.ATT.COM (Mikel Manitius) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: Using a PC for a terminal Message-ID: <13@flmis06.ATT.COM> Date: Wed, 24-Jun-87 23:56:28 EDT Article-I.D.: flmis06.13 Posted: Wed Jun 24 23:56:28 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 26-Jun-87 07:22:09 EDT References: <903@argus.UUCP> Organization: AT&T, Altamote Springs, FL Lines: 23 >> Well, as far as I know, all the AT&T *real* terminals for sale right now (ie >> 610) keep up with 9600 just fine (I've seen them do 19.2K without burping in >> the lab, but my mahcine doesn't go that fast, so I don't know if the >> "production models really go that fast). Just stay away from the "fancy >> features" terminals like the 510 (built-in phone, touch screen) if you really >> need performance. > > So I guess the AT&T 4425 is not a real terminal. Is that why we got > all these terminals as a donation from AT&T? (:-> Hmm. I used to have a 4425 connected to the serial port on my 3B1, and I would have it run at 19.2kb. It would handle the output very well, and it was noticably faster than 9.6kb. However it still wasn't as nice as the throughput on the 3B1's monitor. Now I use it [3B1 monitor] over StarLan to login to all of our other machines, and it is really nice and fast. Of course I use my "rlogin" program (which I posted an article about a few months ago), rather than cu. Cu does 1 byte I/O, which makes it very slow, especially over StarLan. -- Mikel Manitius @ AT&T Network Operations mikel@codas.att.com.uucp | attmail!mikel