use of "Dumb Terminals" in XP?



Jeff
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
I have some old Wyse "dumb terminals" hanging around. Can they be used as
either network extensions or second monitors under Windows XP the way I used
to use them under Unix?

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com

Yves Leclerc
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
NO! Dumb terminal use "serial" signals to control the display of
characters. Monitors only receive a video signal from the video card.

You could sell those dumb terminals on eBay. Dumb terminals are widely used
in Unix/Linux server environments.

"Jeff" <jeff@phony.com> wrote in message
news:Oq1m0StZFHA.3132@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I have some old Wyse "dumb terminals" hanging around. Can they be used as
> either network extensions or second monitors under Windows XP the way I
> used to use them under Unix?
>
> --
>
> Jeff Stevens
> Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
> jeff@stevens.com
>
>
>
>

guestfromhell
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
dumb terminals were just a crt and display card, a keyboard and
interface and a board that converted everything into serial signals.
absolutuely no processing power at all, thats why they are called
'dumb'.

pity they not Sun workstations, they had fantastic display
characteristics - resolutions unheard of in the PC's of the
day..........


--
guestfromhell
------------------------------------------------------------------------
guestfromhell's Profile: http://www.iamnotageek.com/member.php?userid=12490
View this thread: http://www.iamnotageek.com/showthread.php?t=1819077523

Tony Lisanti
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
I had tons of those at my old workplace. MAI Basic 4 to be exact.
They just talked to a SCO Box. That's all we needed.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:31:39 -0500, guestfromhell
<guestfromhell.1pyvmq@no-mx.forums.iamnotageek.com> wrote:

>
>dumb terminals were just a crt and display card, a keyboard and
>interface and a board that converted everything into serial signals.
>absolutuely no processing power at all, thats why they are called
>'dumb'.
>
>pity they not Sun workstations, they had fantastic display
>characteristics - resolutions unheard of in the PC's of the
>day..........

Jeff
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
I thought so, but I am trying to understand: why can they be used in a Unix
environment but not under XP? What function is missing in XP and is there a
tool or utility that can be added to XP to permit it to do what Unix or
Linux can?

I used to use them in my office under Unix (and earlier even under an old OS
called "Concurrent DOS"). They allowed the creation of a much cheaper
network than networking multiple PCs.

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com


"Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
news:O1r1uluZFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> NO! Dumb terminal use "serial" signals to control the display of
> characters. Monitors only receive a video signal from the video card.
>
> You could sell those dumb terminals on eBay. Dumb terminals are widely
> used in Unix/Linux server environments.
>
> "Jeff" <jeff@phony.com> wrote in message
> news:Oq1m0StZFHA.3132@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>I have some old Wyse "dumb terminals" hanging around. Can they be used as
>> either network extensions or second monitors under Windows XP the way I
>> used to use them under Unix?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jeff Stevens
>> Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
>> jeff@stevens.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Yves Leclerc
07-09-2005, 11:55 PM
The dumb terminals do not do "graphics".


"Jeff" <jeff@falsepart.com> wrote in message
news:oSrne.79504$NC6.59791@newsread1.mlpsca01.us.to.verio.net...
>I thought so, but I am trying to understand: why can they be used in a Unix
>environment but not under XP? What function is missing in XP and is there
>a tool or utility that can be added to XP to permit it to do what Unix or
>Linux can?
>
> I used to use them in my office under Unix (and earlier even under an old
> OS called "Concurrent DOS"). They allowed the creation of a much cheaper
> network than networking multiple PCs.
>
> --
>
> Jeff Stevens
> Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
> jeff@stevens.com
>
>
> "Yves Leclerc" <yleclercNOSPAM@maysys.com> wrote in message
> news:O1r1uluZFHA.796@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> NO! Dumb terminal use "serial" signals to control the display of
>> characters. Monitors only receive a video signal from the video card.
>>
>> You could sell those dumb terminals on eBay. Dumb terminals are widely
>> used in Unix/Linux server environments.
>>
>> "Jeff" <jeff@phony.com> wrote in message
>> news:Oq1m0StZFHA.3132@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>>I have some old Wyse "dumb terminals" hanging around. Can they be used
>>>as
>>> either network extensions or second monitors under Windows XP the way I
>>> used to use them under Unix?
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jeff Stevens
>>> Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
>>> jeff@stevens.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

Tim Slattery
07-09-2005, 11:56 PM
"Jeff" <jeff@falsepart.com> wrote:

>I thought so, but I am trying to understand: why can they be used in a Unix
>environment but not under XP? What function is missing in XP and is there a
>tool or utility that can be added to XP to permit it to do what Unix or
>Linux can?
>
>I used to use them in my office under Unix (and earlier even under an old OS
>called "Concurrent DOS"). They allowed the creation of a much cheaper
>network than networking multiple PCs.

Unix was originally written to support multiple simultaneous users
with only a command-line interface. These terminals, which can only
handle text, worked very well with that. Unix systems also have a
telnet daemon, which allows remote users to log on just and work just
as if they were at the system console. (Unix systems handle graphics
just fine these days, but it's still possible to do most anything from
the command line.)

Windows systems were written to be single-user, graphical systems. And
AFAIK, there's no telnet daemon for windows. Little or no thought was
ever given to making functions available at the command line, in
addition to through the GUI.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov

guestfromhell
07-09-2005, 11:56 PM
Basically, they have no motherboard as we know it. All the control
signals are generated by the mainframe at the other end. A PC has a
motherboard to do the job. Its like saying 'Why cant I tow my Caravan
with my Trailer' ? The answer is, 'because its hasnt got an engine'


--
guestfromhell
------------------------------------------------------------------------
guestfromhell's Profile: http://www.iamnotageek.com/member.php?userid=12490
View this thread: http://www.iamnotageek.com/showthread.php?t=1819077523

Jeff
07-09-2005, 11:57 PM
Actually - maybe I am wrong - but the answer that made the most sense to me
is the Wyse dumb terminal's inability to handle graphics. So it cannot
handle graphic interfaces in OSs that depend on them like Windows.

The lack of a PC motherboard in the terminal should not be a determining
factor because it does not prevent the dumb terminal from being used for
text interface OSs like Unix. There should be no reason why all the
processing could not be handled by the host PC with the terminal functioning
as a second monitor and second keyboard.

--

Jeff Stevens
Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
jeff@stevens.com


"guestfromhell" <guestfromhell.1q0t2q@no-mx.forums.iamnotageek.com> wrote in
message news:guestfromhell.1q0t2q@no-mx.forums.iamnotageek.com...
>
> Basically, they have no motherboard as we know it. All the control
> signals are generated by the mainframe at the other end. A PC has a
> motherboard to do the job. Its like saying 'Why cant I tow my Caravan
> with my Trailer' ? The answer is, 'because its hasnt got an engine'
>
>
> --
> guestfromhell
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> guestfromhell's Profile:
> http://www.iamnotageek.com/member.php?userid=12490
> View this thread: http://www.iamnotageek.com/showthread.php?t=1819077523
>

guestfromhell
07-09-2005, 11:57 PM
Well, apart from the total inability of the PC to encode the data
signals into any meaningful order, or the lack of processing power of
the terminal to do anything other than form a full screen synchonised
raster and turn keystrokes into binary ASCII.

Its a lack of protocaol and common language. Niether end knows what the
other end is talking about.


Jeff Wrote:
> Actually - maybe I am wrong - but the answer that made the most sense to
> me
> is the Wyse dumb terminal's inability to handle graphics. So it cannot
> handle graphic interfaces in OSs that depend on them like Windows.
>
> The lack of a PC motherboard in the terminal should not be a
> determining
> factor because it does not prevent the dumb terminal from being used
> for
> text interface OSs like Unix. There should be no reason why all the
> processing could not be handled by the host PC with the terminal
> functioning
> as a second monitor and second keyboard.
>
> --
>
> Jeff Stevens
> Email address deliberately false to avoid spam
> jeff@stevens.com
>
>
> "guestfromhell" <guestfromhell.1q0t2q@no-mx.forums.iamnotageek.com>
> wrote in
> message news:guestfromhell.1q0t2q@no-mx.forums.iamnotageek.com...
> >
> > Basically, they have no motherboard as we know it. All the control
> > signals are generated by the mainframe at the other end. A PC has a
> > motherboard to do the job. Its like saying 'Why cant I tow my Caravan
> > with my Trailer' ? The answer is, 'because its hasnt got an engine'
> >
> >
> > --
> > guestfromhell
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > guestfromhell's Profile:
> > http://www.iamnotageek.com/member.php?userid=12490
> > View this thread:
> http://www.iamnotageek.com/showthread.php?t=1819077523
> >


--
guestfromhell
------------------------------------------------------------------------
guestfromhell's Profile: http://www.iamnotageek.com/member.php?userid=12490
View this thread: http://www.iamnotageek.com/showthread.php?t=1819077523


use of "Dumb Terminals" in XP?