> On Oct 22, 2015, at 10:36 AM, Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 2015-10-22 16:32, Paul Koning wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 22, 2015, at 9:15 AM, Johnny Billquist <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> ...
>>> The VT100 is field upgradeable to a VT101 (I think) or a VT102 (I know).
>>> However, the VT102 is not the same as a VT100 with the added AVO and
>>> printer. Functionally they are the same, but inside they will look
>>> different.
>>
>> That doesn't sound right.
>>
>> The way I remember it is that the VT100 comes in several configurations (for
>> example AVO or not) and you can field modify it from one to another.
>>
>> On the other hand, the VT101 and VT102 are fixed configs (that is, not
>> intended to be field upgradable), roughly matching the base and AVO versions
>> of the VT100 in functionality.
>>
>> It may be that you could, with enough knowledge, turn a VT101 into a VT102
>> or vice versa, but that wasn't a supported operation from what I remember.
>
> Paul, I think you just said the same thing I did. Did you misunderstand me,
> or did I do a typo somewhere?
No, you said that the VT100 is field upgradeable to the VT101 and/or VT102.
And I said that there are several VT100 variants, and that a VT100-xx is field
upgradeable to a VT100-yy. But no VT101 or VT102 is field upgradeable to
anything else, nor is a VT100 field upgradeable to a VT101 or VT102.
To elaborate: the VT101 and VT102 are a generation after the VT100, each fixed
config. I'm guessing that the fixed config thing was done, as well as the
other changes in the details, to reduce cost. Cost reducing a product while
leaving its features largely untouched was a standard thing to do at DEC (and
for that matter is a standard thing to do at any manufacturing organization).
paul
