80x25 Terminal?

[ekl@sdf.lonestar.org (Evan K. Langlois)]

======================================
to write a GEM-based X server for it and the other way round.  Sure.
You're not going to admit in your next letter that you are satisfied
with a 80x25 column terminal screen, are you?
======================================

Can you please explain that remark about 80x25 terminal screen?
Its not true of Unix-boxes, even the dumb-terminal on my desk has a 
132 column mode and a tektronics mode (1024x240 mono).  I =AM=
running an 80x25 terminal window with a Unix shell in it and an 80x24
terminal window .. well, with the terminal I'm typing on running in
it.   I still have lots of room for icons, menus, and that sort of
thing using an alternate font (w/GDOS).  Its a nice size.  In fact, I
think it's the CONNECT font.  Yep it is.

So, neither system is being turned into an 80x25 terminal screen.  I
could set either window to whatever size I wanted.  I =DO= think that
GEM has some serious flaws.  The last I knew, GEM still polled for
events from the VDI so GEMs polling uses about 90% of the CPU time, and
we wonder why running LZH in a window or something is a bit slow.  It
should be interrupt driven.  IO should be DMA/interrupt driven, not a
loop in rwabs!!   These are the two things that I see as being the most
urgent.

I agree that we are spending too much time worrying about the paths of a
Unix system.  But some standard should be created.  If not, I'll suggest
one (the paths I use) and then see if that brings the topic from the
theoretical to the practical.