On Dec 6, 4:21 am, "Matt Wozniski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Noah wrote:
> > You might also want to consider using Cygwin+xterm instead of putty.
> > Xterm has better terminal emulation than PuTTY.
> Xterm certainly has some capabilities that PuTTY doesn't have, but -
> in what way does it have "better" terminal emulation? Ie, how is
> xterm with TERM=xterm-256color better than PuTTY with
> TERM=putty-256color?
This is a hard one because I don't have any examples to show.
The ANSI protocol is not trivial. Most terminal emulators do not
implement the full specification and many have quirks and bugs
that can cause the state of the screen to get out of sync with what
the applications thinks is being displayed. Some terminals handle
Unicode and UTF more gracefully than others. The venerable xterm
is not perfect, but it's fast and well tested. It rarely has parsing
problems... From personal experience, I found that PuTTY would get
corrupted more easily than xterm. PuTTY does have a lot of merit.
PuTTY is a small, single-EXE application that requires no
installation.
But when I am forced to use Windows for any amount of time
I end up installing Cygwin anyway, so then there is no reason
not to use xterm.
I'm always looking for a better Unicode terminal that is simple and
fast.
Lately I've been using rxvt-unicode.
--
Noah
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_use" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
