Date:         Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:13:03 -0400
Reply-To:     Jim Groeneveld <jim2stat@YAHOO.CO.UK>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Jim Groeneveld <jim2stat@YAHOO.CO.UK>
Subject:      Re: Unused Mainframe Features (was: PC SAS vs. Mainframe SAS)

Hi Rob,

In the distant past I used to use terminals on mainframes that were fixed
80x24. After that the IBM PC was 80x25 but 80x24 in the Basic interpreter.
Dependent on the graphic card and monitor you could set other resolutions,
like 80x43 or 80x50 (also a standard), but even 100x60 or 136x60 and more of
these. As long as the readability was no problem the only problem was
whether text screen (not line) oriented software supported such a
resolution. I could set the text processor PC-Write to these resolutions
nicely, but other software, that could not be configured, displayed its
screen lines directly after another, so with 136 columns you saw one and a
half line on the screen, the other half displayed a the beginning of the
second line and so on. Completely garbage. Such programs could only be used
in 80x25 or possibly 80x50 mode.

The same kind of problems may occur with ANSI support (positioning the
cursor anywhere on the screen correctly). This still may apply to current
terminal emulators. They should support ANSI screen features in any
resolution, which is the client side. But text screen oriented software on
the mainframe (server) side should also know about the client resolution to
send the appropriate ANSI commands. With just line oriented software all
this is not a problem.

Even now with Linux when I run a text console window or only text mode: if
the resolution deviates from 80x25 not all text screen oriented software may
display correctly.

So if you apply text screen oriented features, like deviant CxR resolutions,
not supported by the server software, you may be limited in the choice of
text resolutions.

Regards - Jim.
--
Jim Groeneveld, Netherlands
statistician, SAS consultant
home.hccnet.nl/jim.groeneveld

On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:55:50 -0400, Joe Whitehurst <joewhitehurst@GMAIL.COM>
wrote:

>Robert,
>
>Do you really mean to say this?
>
>" So no, you are not limited to neither 24 rows nor to 80 columns".
>
>
>
>To paraphrase G. Santayana, the SAS Macro Facility used by common SAS
>programmers is an old mate that gives no pleasure and many headaches,
>yet she/he cannot live without it, and resents any aspersions that
>strangers may cast on its character