In
<cafo-8tohfcwkbrfe0b8amdghk_5tvlubgm0o_vlfrjo25yv...@mail.gmail.com>,
on 06/07/2015
at 10:33 PM, zMan <[email protected]> said:
>OK, what I wrote was:
>...could either support four 3279 sessions at once, or one 3279
>session that took the whole screen (you could switch modes; in
>single-session mode, you'd then cycle through the sessions).
>Which is admittedly not 100% clear,
Not even close.
>but doesn't make sense as "can only display one session at a
>time", because then there wouldn't be a single-session mode, eh?
I'd say that it doesn't make sense the other way: "Where have all the
pixels gone, long time passing?" Then there's the question of explicit
partitions, which were crucial to the 3290's appeal.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT
ISO position; see <http://patriot.net/~shmuel/resume/brief.html>
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
