On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 19:32:53 +0000, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-03-11, Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> wrote: > >> BTW, there was no such thing as a VT-200 - there was a VT-220 text >> terminal (which I think the OP was remembering) and the VT-240 and 241 >> terminals, which were totally different graphics terminals that >> accepted Tektronics graphics commands: comparing a VT-220 to a >> VT-240/241 would be like comparing an Epson dot-matric printer to an HP >> 7485 plotter! > > The 220 and 240/241 weren't fundamentally different display technologies > they way a dot-matrix differs from a pen-plotter. Both were raster-scan > CRT tubes (AFAICT, they used identical CRT tubes and driver hardwar). > When used in text mode, the 240 wasn't really any different than the > 220. But, the 240 also supported a graphics mode that allowed apps to > draw using vector commands). I remember writing an app using the ReGIS > command set to draw a clock with a moving second hand on a 240. > > Comparing a vt220 to a vt240 is like comparing a black-and-white epson > 9-pin dot-matrix printer that can't do graphics with a balck-and-white > epson 9-pin dot-matrix printer than can do graphics.
Sorry if I wasn't clear: I was intending to compare APIs rather than the display mechanisms - I am aware that both text terminals and vector graphics terminals are raster devices, not vector like oscilloscopes. What I was getting at is that the API used to cause graphics or text to be output on a dot-matrix printer is totally unlike that used to draw to same representations on a pen plotter. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org | -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list