back to article The in and outs of Microsoft's new Windows Terminal

Microsoft's new terminal app is now available in the Windows Store - so naturally your vultures took it for a spin. What's the point of the new Windows terminal? There are a few things. One obvious one is multi-tab support. You can click + to add a tab. There is also a drop-down menu that lets you select which command line …

  1. Alan J. Wylie

    VT (Video Terminal) escape sequences, based on an ancient system for formatting text by including codes prefixed with the Esc character

    Is there anyone here who remembers the VT52 or VT100? Or the horrors of /etc/termcap

    1. Jim Howes

      Indeed. I have a full set of schematics, technical manuals, and other related stuff here. On microfische, naturally. A few VT100's even, although most are slowly dying as the HT circuits give out.

      1. Keef

        If your HT circuits are giving out maybe do a bombing run on changing the Caps and Diodes in the cascade circuit.

        Also check for dry joints/joint cracks on the Line Output Transformer, they rattle a bit and failure at the joint to the PCB is common.

        1. jake Silver badge

          Second Keef's suggestions. That'll cover you for most problems.

    2. John H Woods Silver badge

      oh yes...

      ... but white text on red background is yet more horrific

      1. Fatman

        Re: oh yes...

        <quote>... but white text on red background is yet more horrific</quote>

        Fuck NO!!!!

        How else do you remind the operator that they are logged in as root????

        1. Glen 1

          Re: oh yes...

          a different shade of red.

          eg #990000

        2. jake Silver badge

          Re: oh yes...

          If you need a constant reminder that you are logged on as root, you shouldn't be logging on as root because you haven't developed the right amount of healthy paranoia quite yet.

    3. b0llchit Silver badge
      Linux

      The horrors and blessings of the console

      And the horrors of curses, ncurses, etc. and all the language settings and character sets. It is still a horrible mess. However, the *nix philosophy is still better than many other things seen or created.

      And, with MS implementing the "ancient ways", it surely looks like they are admitting that their approach was not the best way to go.

      So, when will they implement fork() and forget?

      1. Jim Howes

        Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

        I haven't been overly bothered by fork() as yet, but a working select() would be nice. MS's function cannot wait across a set of fd's of different types (such as a serial port and a network socket). In the end I gave up and used the cygwin platform, which has a working select(), which was enough to do the job of talking to a telehone exchange via RS232 and fielding network requests at the same time. The unix philosophy that at the end of the day, everything is a file, pays huge dividends. Using cygwin also gave me a nice simple tcgetattr()/tcsetattr() which allowed serial port setup in a tiny amount of code, compared to the sheer lovecraftian horror that is the windows API for such things.

        1. richardcox13

          Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

          > MS's function cannot wait across a set of fd's of different types

          Like WaitForMultipleObjects or an IO completion port can?

          Win32 != *nix: the approach is different.

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

          1. Mr Benny

            Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

            select() is simple and cross platform. epoll is neither. As for using some 3rd party library with all the dependency bollocks that goes with it just to do basic multiplexing.... err, why?

          2. s2bu

            Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

            Except epoll is fundamentally broken, just like devpoll was. BSD kqueue seems to be one of the few sane APIs.

            https://idea.popcount.org/2017-02-20-epoll-is-fundamentally-broken-12/

        3. jake Silver badge

          Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

          "In the end I gave up and used the cygwin platform"

          In the end, I removed Windows as an option. I'm a lot happier. So is my bank balance.

      2. big_D Silver badge

        Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

        Not necessarily a worse way, just a non-standard way and now they are moving back to the standard way, which they abandoned when they moved from MS-DOS to Windows...

        As they are trying to integrate *NIX use into Windows, it makes sense to use the same methods on all terminals and as trying to get Linux to switch to a Win32 API on the Linux terminal would probably provoke a apoplectic fit, it is probably safer and easier to Microsoft to re-adopt the escape sequences again.

        1. Mr Benny

          Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

          They abandoned more than terminal codes - remember Xenix? A perfectly good full version of unix which they ditched in order to flog the utter garbage that was windows 3

          1. jake Silver badge

            Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

            Xenix was actually licensed by Microsoft from AT&T in 1979. It was the exact same bog standard PDP11 Version 7 Unix that I had access to at UCB. Microsoft never actually coded anything[0] for Xenix, rather they sub-licensed the AT&T source code to third parties, who did the actual coding and porting.

            For example, it was SCO who ported it to the IBM PC's 8086/8088 architecture in roughly 1983. Yes, the very same machine that shipped with MS-DOS. Most of us yawned[1] ... although looking back, it was a pretty good hack by SCO![2][3] Hindsight's 20/20 ...

            The name Xenix came about because Ma Bell couldn't (or didn't want to) let them use the UNIX name. The claim for jealousy guarding the trademarked UNIX name was because MaBell was regulated and wasn't allowed to get into the retail trade, although that always rang a trifle hollow to me.

            Before SCO's port was released, there was a TRS-68000 version, a Zilog Z8001 port, and an Altos 8086 version (not necessarily in that order, my mind is concatenating time). There were several others. Microsoft didn't write any of them, rather the third-party companies in question did the coding.

            A version of SCO Xenix is available for the download here: ftp://www.tuhs.org/UnixArchive/Distributions/Other/Xenix/ ... Don't blame me for the www in that URL.

            [0] Unless you consider adding Redmond copyright crap to a few header files "coding".

            [1] Those of us working on BSD at the time looked on Xenix as BSD's somewhat insane & slightly neurotic little brother.

            [2] A while back when I posted something along these lines, I asked if anyone could remember who ported Xenix to Apple's Lisa. Turns out it was SCO ... I have a copy, my Lisa looks a lot happier running a un*x than the OS she came with. (Don't worry, all you purists, I have the stock software for her, too.)

            [3] Not the SCO of recent (ongoing?) litigation. Not by a long shot.

            1. Mr Benny

              Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

              It doesn't really matter who the original author was. Do you think OSX was entirely written by Apple? MS could have used Xenix as the basis for a proper PC unix OS which would probably have meant linux and freeBSD never existing or at least staying as small research projects no one had heard of. Whether that would be good for us is another discussion but it would have been very good for MS. Instead they spent over 30 years putting ever more lipstick on the Windows pig and it still goes Oink on a daily basis.

              1. Richard Plinston

                Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

                > MS could have used Xenix as the basis for a proper PC unix OS

                It was "a proper PC unix OS", it was AT&T UNIX edition 7 ported to the 8086 by SCO. Later when SCO bought the rights (partly funded by Paul) it was updated to later x86 and to System III and System V and was renamed to Open Server.

                > have meant linux and freeBSD never existing

                BSD (1977) existed _before_ Xenix (1980) and was free.

                If Xenix/OpenServer continued being sold by Microsoft then Linux probably would have taken off sooner.

                1. Mr Benny

                  Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

                  "it was AT&T UNIX edition 7 ported to the 8086"

                  God knows how, it didn't have an MMU - even linux requires a minimum of a 386. I'm guessing it required extra hardware on the board. Anyway, what I meant by proper was something more consumer friendly like OSX. The early X windows window managers were to say the least, minimalist and having to edit config files just to change the desktop or add items to menus was a complete non starter for Joe Average.

                  "BSD (1977) existed _before_ Xenix (1980) and was free"

                  And ran on a PDP-11, not x86.

                  "If Xenix/OpenServer continued being sold by Microsoft then Linux probably would have taken off sooner."

                  No idea how you worked that one out.

                  1. Richard Plinston

                    Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

                    > God knows how, it didn't have an MMU

                    I have the Bell System Technical Journal July-August 1977 here, the Unix issue (and a collectors item). One article is 'UNIX on a Microprocessor'' which describes implementing Unix (edition 6 I think) on a DEC LSI-11 microcomputer with 20K words (16bit words) and no MMU. Granted that was single-user.

                    An 8086 can support 1 megabyte and is perfectly capable of running multiuser systems. I have some here: ICL PC2s - 8086 with 1Mb running Concurrent-CP/M-86 (though not switched on for a couple of decades).

                    > even linux requires a minimum of a 386

                    Yes and that was deliberate because Linux said: """It uses every conceivable feature of the 386 I could find, as it was also a project to teach me about the 386."""

                    However, ELKS* is a fork of Linux for lesser CPUs such as the 8086.

                    > And ran on a PDP-11, not x86.

                    Unix ran on a large number of different processors. BSD (Berkeley System Distribution) was a distribution of Unix, based on actual Unix source code, with some changes and additions. In fact 1BSD was just the additions.

                    > No idea how you worked that one out.

                    No, you don't, do you.

                    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embeddable_Linux_Kernel_Subset

                  2. Richard Plinston

                    Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

                    > what I meant by proper was something more consumer friendly like OSX.

                    OSX was nearly 20 years after Xenix and relied on hardware (and its relatively low costs) that was inconceivable in the early 1980s. It was also BSD based and didn't have to pay royalties to AT&T as Xenix had to. NeXT (who wrote the core OS) and Apple were primarily hardware manufacturers and didn't have to make a profit from software.

                    As I previously said: at the time there were expensive workstations such as Star and PERQ (and Lisa) running graphical Unix (or Unix-like) but the profit was in the hardware, which MS did not do, and the market was very small.

                    Windows on the PC may have been crap but it was cheap enough to sell a lot of. DRI's GEM* had sold a million copies by the time Windows 1 was released and that was the market that Bill wanted. Star and PERQ sold in the hundreds, not the millions.

                    * GEM was also the basis of Atari's TOS which was 5 years later (than Xenix) and also made its profit from the hardware sales.

            2. Richard Plinston

              Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

              > Microsoft never actually coded anything[0] for Xenix,

              That is not quite true. Xenix included additional code that was owned by MS, though they may have paid SCO to actually write it. For example there was record locking which was not in Unix and this continued to exist in Open Server.

              > it was SCO who ported it to the IBM PC's 8086/8088 architecture in roughly 1983.

              Yes, SCO, a father and son team, did the work but they were paid by Microsoft under contract and did it on Microsoft's development machines (DEC VAX) in-house. It was actually released in 1980, before the IBM PC and before MS bought a licence to use QDOS/SCP-DOS to make PC-DOS and MS-DOS.

              Later SCO did buy the rights to Xenix and developed it further but still had to pay licence fees to MS for code that MS owned (but may have been written originally by SCO).

              > Yes, the very same machine that shipped with MS-DOS.

              Actually it was used on machines quite unlike the 5150 IBM-PC. Altos 8086 boxes ran an 8086 and had a full megabyte of RAM and ran multiuser with serial terminals. Until 1983 MS-DOS 2 (and the PC-XT) it couldn't support hard disks while Xenix required a hard disk. So, no, they weren't the same machines.

          2. big_D Silver badge

            Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

            Yes, I had to administer a Xenix box once...

      3. jake Silver badge

        Re: The horrors and blessings of the console

        curses & ncurses aren't as bad as they are cut out to be. They do a job, and do it as well as can be expected. See Slackware's package installer ... Still happy after all these years :-)

    4. big_D Silver badge

      Yes, I remember them. I used to know most of the codes off by heart, from programming on a VAX.

    5. Adrian Harvey

      I expect there are quite a few of us, but what bothers me is that I thought how clever curses / ncurses was - a library designed to give you api based access to the screen and hide all the termcap/info mess. We seem to be full circle somehow...

      However, having a protocol for remote display / network transparency of terminal apps is a good thing. I hadn’t realised some of the remote access services were scraping hidden console windows to make some apps remotely accessible.

    6. Duncan Macdonald Silver badge

      The VT52 was a big improvement

      Over the previous terminal - an ASR33 !!!

      1. jake Silver badge

        Re: The VT52 was a big improvement

        That's a a "Teletype Model 33", you heathen.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      VT52 and VT100

      And before the VT52 there was the VT05. Shudder as I remember using one on a PDP-11/05 circa 1975

      The VT220 was a lot better than any of them.

      {looks fondly at the Folder containing the Schematics that sits on my bookshelf}

      1. big_D Silver badge

        Re: VT52 and VT100

        Although I preferred the keyboard on the VT100 and the VT52 better than the VT220/240 and VT320/340. The VT400 series was a much better than the 200 and 300 series, but not quite as good as the VT100.

      2. keith_w Bronze badge

        Re: VT52 and VT100

        And before that the 12 line VT50

    8. Kubla Cant Silver badge

      My config.sys always included device=ansi.sys in earlier versions of Windows.

      Unless I'm misremembering, the VT100 and VT2** supported ANSI escape sequences, but the VT52 didn't. Some of the sequences would control lights on the keyboard - I remember maintaining a program where some idiot flashed the lights to draw attention to an error.

      1. Warm Braw Silver badge

        Unless I'm misremembering

        You're perfectly correct, the VT52's escape codes were all followed by a single letter (and then a cursor address in one case) whereas the VT100 and later used the more complex ANSI codes (though could emulate VT52s).

        At one time in the distant past I had a VT52 at home attached to what was then an extremely advanced 1200 baud modem for remote working.

        Perhaps as a result, I'm not overjoyed at the prospect of erasing* 40 years of UI development in favour of ASCII text, however brightly coloured it might be.

        *Which presumably would be either Esc[2J or EscHEscJ depending...

      2. big_D Silver badge
        Boffin

        I wrote a simple TSR screensaver. It blanked the screen and did a "KITT" on the Caps Lock, Num Lock and Scroll Lock lights to show it was running - although that was in Assembler, not ANSI escape codes...

      3. jake Silver badge

        And they all sucked ...

        ... compared to the IBM Model M ... The only thing non-stock on most of my DEC kit are the keybr0ads.

    9. alain williams Silver badge

      CHUI: CHaracter based User Interfaces

      Is there anyone here who remembers the VT52 or VT100? Or the horrors of /etc/termcap

      Yes I remember it well. I still use the current incarnation in the guise of terminfo. The thing that it is great for is running something like vim/emacs on a remote machine over a slow ssh connection when anything GUI would be impossibly slow. Actually: I also do it on my local machine: not having to worry about the mouse is great - touch typing makes doing things fast.

      I would like to know what I should set my TERM variable to if I wanted to use this MS terminal, hopefully they have adopted something along the lines of 'xterm' as that encodes things like shift-function key (& a few like that).

      Have they produced a terminfo entry for this ?

      Also: does it understand UTF-8 encoded characters ? Anything else is now obsolete.

      1. PeteA
        Pint

        Re: CHUI: CHaracter based User Interfaces

        OK, I'll bite ... it's not infrequent that I use vim from WSL (at work - at home I can use gvim). In general, I can open up vim, change code, recompile & get the changes pushed before Visual Studio's even got around to opening. So terminfo's still very important for me :). Excellent point about a terminfo entry for the shiny new terminal (ROFL - MS've caught up with the noughties. Next thing you know, we'll even be able to split it into a grid! OTOH, why you'd want to try doing anything serious on Windows eludes me anyway unless you've got a sadistic employer.)

        Icon because it's what I look forward to after a week of fighting Windows at work.

    10. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      OMG - I still remember seeing smooth scrolling on the VT-100 for the first time. It was amazing.

    11. jake Silver badge

      termcap's not all that bad.

      I still open it once a week or so. Handy to have a knowledge of when you're into restoring old bits of kit. If you want a REAL headache inducer, try learning Sendmail's command language. Makes perl read like a "young adult" novel.

    12. Martlark

      In university the plebs had 2400/2400 baud terminals whilst the admins lorded over us with their powerful 4800 full duplex master terminals.

      1. jake Silver badge

        Until ...

        ... you shoulder-surfed an admin and got root ... and promptly set inittab to give you a more reasonable 9600, right?

  2. big_D Silver badge

    Good old days...

    Command-Line apps to emit VT enriched text, rather than calling Win32 Console APIs to control/format Console output."

    Just like the good old days, when we would load ANSI.SYS in DOS to give it standard escape codes to control the console.

    1. Sandtitz Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Good old days...

      "Just like the good old days, when we would load ANSI.SYS in DOS"

      Those "in the know" preferred NANSI.SYS or NNANSI.SYS or even ZANSI.SYS...

      1. MacroRodent Silver badge

        Re: Good old days...

        Those "in the know" preferred NANSI.SYS or NNANSI.SYS or even ZANSI.SYS..

        Indeed. I have never understood how Microsoft managed to make the bundled ansi.sys of MS-DOS so slow. This was one of the reasons why all cool programmers avoided using it and poked the display directly (killing portability).

      2. billdehaan

        Re: Good old days...

        There was also a commercial FANSI.SYS ("Fancy") which was sold back in the 1980s.

        I was always amazed that the default IBM/MS ansi driver had direct video connection to the display, and was only marginally faster than 1200 baud dial-up speeds. The number of DOS apps that wrote directly to video to bypass the lethargic video driver was legendary, and caused no end of problems once windowing systems started to become popular.

    2. Richard Plinston

      Re: Good old days...

      > we would load ANSI.SYS in DOS

      MS-DOS, up to MS-DOS 5, could run on many different architectures - as long as they were 8086/8088 or similar. Some of these ran serial terminals (SCP and LDP S100 bus machines for example), others had adaptors that were not IBM compatible (DEC Rainbow, Wang PC).

      PC-DOS only ran on IBM PC and clones.

      Most early software could be configured to use whatever terminal or adaptor was available. Borland's Turbo-Pascal 3, for example, came in four versions: CP/M, CP/M-86, MS-DOS, and PC-DOS. The MS-DOS version could be configured (as could the CP/M versions) to use various terminals including ANSI which was suitable to run on IBM-PC or clones. The PC-DOS version only used bit-banging the mono or color adaptors (or hercules).

  3. Blockchain commentard

    And since it's a Store app, you can't install it on Microsoft's own server software. Staying with Teraterm.

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Microsoft's idea today is that you install a GUI-less server and you use the Windows Server Management Tools and Windows PowerShell from a secured client to manage it, so it doesn't need it the new terminal.

      1. Duncan Macdonald Silver badge

        Leaving out the GUI

        From the server does at least remove one potential cause of crashes.

      2. LDS Silver badge
        Facepalm

        "from a secured client to manage it"

        Which is really great when you can't access the server remotely - for any reason.... <G>

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: "from a secured client to manage it"

          It still has a local console for when the worst happens - or the modern equivalent of the big red switch...

          In our case, we use the Hyper-V or VMWare viewers for direct access and either try and fix the problem or just reboot the server, if all else fails.

          1. LDS Silver badge

            "It still has a local console for when the worst happens"

            Sure, but if you get only a far more limited local console, it's not fun when you have an issue that requires local access - whatever "local" means (physical or virtual console), and you have to work with very limited tools only.

            Sometimes just rebooting may not help at all, it could even make things worse....

            1. J. Cook Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: "It still has a local console for when the worst happens"

              IIRC, the local console in the Core edition of Windows Server is a powershell window. it's not exactly limited, except that you can't run/spawn a GUI. We don't use it here for various and sundry reasons. (most of which is that our vendors have no clue what to do if confronted with a server running Core. *wry grin* )

              1. DavidRa

                Re: "It still has a local console for when the worst happens"

                All the more reason to install Core, I'd say.

  4. phuzz Silver badge
    Headmaster

    "Hit Settings in the menu, and profiles.json opens in Visual Studio Code"

    Slight correction, the .json will open with whatever program you have associated with that extension. So on my system it had to ask what I wanted to use (Notepad++ thanks very much).

    1. big_D Silver badge

      And on my home system, where I tried it, it just opened the Windows Store...

  5. Khaptain Silver badge
    Thumb Down

    Minimum Specs - Read the specs before getting excited

    Requires version 19H1 (18362.0) or superior which is pretty much the absolute bleeding edge..

    I'm running 1809 ( 17763.557) which is a relatively up to date version of W10..

    Why the f*** does the store offer applications that I can't install, it's not like it doesn't already know which version I am currently running.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why the f*** does the store offer

      So that you can lust after the app, and upgrade your system. I found the terminal program (joke waiting to be made) in the store on my Windows Mobile phone. Upgrade your system before installing this app it said. If only....

    2. MatthewSt

      Re: Minimum Specs - Read the specs before getting excited

      Because otherwise you'd be complaining that you couldn't find it at all, and you'd have no idea why!

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    But...

    ...why not just run Linux?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: But...

      Because ... Linux

    2. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: But...

      It's a little while since I used Linux for anything, but I still have nightmares about trying to find the right libraries and tools to get MAKE to run so that I could recompile something-or-other to get it to recognise my (common) graphics card so that the window manager server would run.

      I'm sure it's better these days, but of course, the question is how much better?

      Linux's advantage is its flexibility, but it sacrifices simplicity. Operating systems are tools, to do a job, and most people prefer their tools to be easy to understand and use, with little to no expert knowledge required. To stretch the analogy, Windows is a pre-assembled multi-tool, but with limited customisability. Linux is a box of parts, which can be combined to make any number of different power tools, with instructions for how to put some of the bits together, where someone could be bothered to write them. They might even be in English.

      1. dajames

        Re: But...

        Linux's advantage is its flexibility, but it sacrifices simplicity.

        You say that ... but I've always found it simpler than Windows. These days it's better documented, too (though, sadly, that says more about the state of Windows documentation than it does about that of Linux documentation).

        Operating systems are tools, to do a job, and most people prefer their tools to be easy to understand and use, with little to no expert knowledge required.

        If only!

        To stretch the analogy, Windows is a pre-assembled multi-tool, but with limited customisability. Linux is a box of parts, which can be combined to make any number of different power tools, with instructions for how to put some of the bits together ...

        ... but a Linux distro is a pre-assembled multi-tool with considerable customizability and container-load of pre-prepared attachments (applications) thrown in. The installer and the package manager do all the heavy lifting, leaving an experience that is simpler than Windows and less frustrating.

        Yeah, sure, Linux has some rough edges ... but so do all OSes.

      2. MacroRodent Silver badge
        Linux

        Re: But...

        > I still have nightmares about trying to find the right libraries and tools to get MAKE to run so that I could recompile something-or-other to get it to recognise my (common) graphics card so that the window manager server would run.

        That must have been a looong time ago. At least for the past 0x10 years, all major Linux distributions Just Work on common graphics cards, hardware detected automatically.

        > To stretch the analogy, Windows is a pre-assembled multi-tool, but with limited customisability. Linux is a box of parts,

        But actually most people run pre-built Linux distributions, which are just as much "pre-assembled multi-tools". With the difference, that you are free to take them apart and tinker, if you like.

      3. sw guy

        Re: But...

        Congratulations, 20 years in a cave and you survived.

        Me, happy Linux and Windows users, I may have encountered drivers glitches on both sides, but they really tend to fade in the past.

        And they mostly originate with some failure from hardware provider.

      4. Richard Plinston

        Re: But...

        > to get it to recognise my (common) graphics card so that the window manager server would run.

        It's the 21st century now.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: But...but

        If you're going to post about how difficult Linux is to use, which I certainly found it to be in the 90s, you could do yourself, and all those people who donate their time and knowledge, a favour by updating your experience with a popular contemporary distro. Earlier Windows versions needed a pile of driver discs for very common bits of hardware, and some issues couldn't get resoled. Microsoft tend to resolve such issues by ignoring them, and leaving it to the user

        1. DiViDeD Silver badge
          Headmaster

          Re: But...but

          some issues couldn't get resoled.

          I resoled some of my issues recently - they were letting water in when it had been raining.

          Just sayin.

      6. bobajob12

        Re: But...

        Those days ended around 2008. They are are long gone. I don't miss trawling through a HOWTO late at night wondering why things didn't work. Linux is at least as good as any OS on the planet as far as those sorts of issues go.

      7. DiViDeD Silver badge

        Re: But...

        Linux's advantage is its flexibility, but it sacrifices simplicity.

        All depends on how simple you want it. Which is more useful?

        [programname]: error in loading shared libraries: lib xxx..so. x: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory.

        which at least lets you know where to look, or

        Uh Oh! Something went wrong. Hold on while we try to fix it for you

        which tells you fsck all about anything?

  7. Alister

    Windows Terminal now uses GPU-based text rendering (DirectWrite and DirectX), which means high quality fonts as well as emoji and so on if you want them.

    Are we really now at the stage where users can't survive without pretty fonts and emojii?

    FFS, it's a terminal window for typing commands and running scripts, not a fucking chat app!

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge

      If they said "full utf-8 support" would it make you feel any better?

      1. dajames

        If they said "full utf-8 support" would it make you feel any better?

        Yes, because I'd know what that meant!

        1. [VtS]Alf

          “Support for emoji”

          What your predecessor meant was that “full utf-8” support also means “support for emoji”, since those are all defined within utf-8. So if you talk to the Direct* text API’s you get support for ClearType rendering, as well as scaling for all kinds of resolutions AND emoji support =D =D

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "it's a terminal window for typing commands and running scripts"

      Yes, but those commands may need to refer to files that users have created, which can have all kinds of characters in the name.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'll stick with Cygwin64 terminal. One that uses /bin/bash

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      3 thumbs down

      From zsh users :-)

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Boffin

    Keeping it real

    Check your privileges on commenting unless you've compiled Terminal yourself from the source code.

    1. Dvon of Edzore
      Boffin

      Re: Keeping it real

      Compiled someone else's code? How about written a terminal emulator and screen scraper to automate repetitive tasks? (Got ten years and a couple t-shirts for that.) I think you underestimate the birds who flock here.

  10. bed

    <ESC> sequences revisted

    Now that brought back memories from way back when I wrote a PDP11/70 program to change the font / font size on an Epson dot matrix printer connected to the serial port on a VT52, then VT220, and another I called 'lpr', which turned on the printer port, dumped a file to it, and turned it off again. Them were the days.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021