use of "Dumb Terminals" in XP?

[Jeff]

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?

 

[Yves Leclerc]

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.

 

[Tony Lisanti]

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.

 

[Jeff]

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.

 

[Yves Leclerc]

The dumb terminals do not do "graphics".

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
(e-mail address removed)

 

[Tim Slattery]

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.

 

[Jeff]

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.