[Simh] Errors when using pUTTY terminal emulator to telnet to simh.

[Ethan Dicks]

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:26 AM, Tim Shoppa <shoppa at trailing-edge.com> wrote:
> All those terminal emulators are semi-usable but really pretty rotten
> compared to a real VT100 or VT220.

Agreed.  All terminal emulators handle basic character positioning and
simple attributes, but it seems that every emulator has some facet
that just doesn't perform the same as a real terminal.

> I know I just painted myself into a really tiny corner by admitting that
> I like EDT.  But that also means that I'm also really really picky and
> exacting about terminal emulation.

It may be a tiny corner, but the corner is not empty.  You are not alone.

> MS-DOS Kermit also has a spot-on perfect VT52 emulation.

I'll have to look into that - I have had problems in the past with
trying to run the VTEDIT TECO macro on OS/8 with a real DEC VT220 in
VT52 mode.  There was something screwy with the emulation that I was
never able to diagnose.  At the time, real VT52s were about $50, so I
just got one of those instead and it worked perfectly.  Now, they
aren't so common (or cheap!)

Everything else I've ever done with a PDP-8, the VT220 was fine for,
as are most emulators.  Running VTEDIT counts as terminal abuse, but
it really is handy.

> MS-DOS Kermit works very nicely with a built-in TCP/IP stack and also
> network support for LAT (DEC's terminal server over Ethernet protocol).
> These are incredibly incredibly handy.

Yes!  I have an ancient Zenith laptop that I use with a Xircom PE-3 in
that manner (this is the second time today I've posted about it, since
there's an active thread on Classiccmp discussing the SpareTimeGizmos
VT-6 "dumb terminal" vs terminal emulation).  It's easy to fit MS-DOS
3.3, Kermit, and the PE-3 packet driver on a low-density floppy -
power on, boot, and go.

Terminal emulators work for me 90%+ of the time.  When they don't, I
reach for a real terminal on a real serial port and it just works.

-ethan