On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Paul Koning <paulkon...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> On Sep 4, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Fritz Mueller <fri...@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. -ethan
