>>18
It has no features. What features do you want in a terminal?
And wanting to write scripts for it is a sign that something's wrong. For gods' sake, it's just a terminal.
>>23
Is that just your way of saying ‘‘I don't want eight extra KILOBYTES of worthless perl embedding and cursor positioning code!’’?
>>22,24
Do you know what the difference between a terminal emulator and a shell is? (hint: the terminal emulator is csrss.exe) Oh, wait, never mind, you're trolling me.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 16:34
Hey, didn't we have that thing about not replying to FrozenVoid's posts?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 16:52
>>29
I uninstalled (or at least deactivated) the FrozenVoid extension to speed up page loads ;_;
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 17:14
My terminal emulator is called cmd.exe
Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.
C:\Documents and Settings\James>
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 17:18
>>31
Please don't do that and activate it again. Thank you.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 17:18
>>32
That's not a terminal emulator. Neither is DOS, which it emulates.
>>39
That section of the article does not contain any links to reputable peer-reviewed journals, so I am going to disagree with it: cmd.exe is simply a command line interpreter, nothing more.
>>39
And the Win32 Console is notcmd.exe. Every Win32 program can have a Win32 Console attached to it, simply by calling AllocConsole. If it does not do this, it inherits the console from its parent process, if any. The console window which AllocConsole creates is managed by the CSRSS.EXE process.
Under the correct terminology, cmd.exe is a shell, and console windows managed by CSRSS.EXE are terminal emulators (though they do not, AFAIK, process ANSI terminal codes).
>>44 Well,if that was the case i would be unable to set colors or fonts or customize the terminal to my liking.
Some display effects can be performed by writing a program utilizing the correct APIs.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-17 18:17
>>50
Exactly, that is why it is not a terminal emulator. What terminal would it be trying to emulate, anyway?
None, because DOS is not a terminal, and there is little in common with it, anyway.
>>63
No, a terminal is a hardware device, therefore the name terminal emulator. DOS does not emulate any known terminal.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-18 5:23
Terminal.app with fish because I am not into retrocomputing.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-18 5:55
>>66 While early IBM PCs had single color green screens, these screens were not terminals. The screen of a PC did not contain any character generation hardware; all video signals and video formatting were generated by the video display card in the PC.
I rarely find a need for an actual terminal emulator. M-x shell handles 99% of all command-line work I care about, and is infinitely more convenient. For the remaining one percent, I use Terminal.app or xterm, whichever is available.