goes@oregon.uoregon.edu (Jim Goes) (01/21/89)
In article <673@ur-cc.UUCP>, joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Josh Sirota) writes: > > I did the same thing recently (Check my review of terminal programs a few > weeks ago) and found Telix to be fantastic except for one major flaw ... > it's too damned slow to use at 9600 baud. > -- Au contraire. Must be a problem on your end, not the software. Possibly the interface between Telix and 9600b modems? I regularly use Telix 3.11 to accesss IBM and VAX mainframes over a TCP/IP network at 19,200 and have no speed problems. _________________________________________________________________________ Jim Goes | InterNet GOES@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU Graduate School of Management | UUCP: {fav backbone}!uoregon!oregon!goes University of Oregon | MaBell: (503) 686-3309
vg55611@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Gopal) (01/23/89)
In article <176@oregon.uoregon.edu> goes@oregon.uoregon.edu (Jim Goes) writes: >In article <673@ur-cc.UUCP>, joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Josh Sirota) writes: >> >> I did the same thing recently (Check my review of terminal programs a few >> weeks ago) and found Telix to be fantastic except for one major flaw ... >> it's too damned slow to use at 9600 baud. >-- >Au contraire. Must be a problem on your end, not the software. Possibly the >interface between Telix and 9600b modems? I regularly use Telix 3.11 to >accesss IBM and VAX mainframes over a TCP/IP network at 19,200 and have no >speed problems. >Jim Goes | InterNet GOES@OREGON.UOREGON.EDU The max. speed possible is probably a function of the CPU speed of your machine. Each character coming in generates an interrupt, and the interrupt has to be processed fully before the next character can arrive for proper operation. Compare your CPU speeds! Venu P. Gopal UUCP: att!ihuxy!vg55611 Internet: vg55611@ihuxy.att.com BITNET: com%"vg55611@ihuxy.att.com" or com%"vg55611%ihuxy@research.att.com"
allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (01/30/89)
As quoted from <2816@ihuxy.ATT.COM> by vg55611@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Gopal): +--------------- | In article <176@oregon.uoregon.edu> goes@oregon.uoregon.edu (Jim Goes) writes: | >In article <673@ur-cc.UUCP>, joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Josh Sirota) writes: | >> weeks ago) and found Telix to be fantastic except for one major flaw ... | >> it's too damned slow to use at 9600 baud. | > | >Au contraire. Must be a problem on your end, not the software. Possibly the | >interface between Telix and 9600b modems? I regularly use Telix 3.11 to | | The max. speed possible is probably a function of the CPU speed of your | machine. Each character coming in generates an interrupt, and the interrupt | has to be processed fully before the next character can arrive for proper | operation. Compare your CPU speeds! +--------------- I doubt that's it. I use Telix at 9600 baud on 4.77MHz 8088 systems (ITT XTRA, Toshiba T1000) all the time and have no speed problems (I have flow control turned off so I can run Jove, so there's no hidden XON/XOFF stuff making it look like it works). ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@ncoast.org uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu Send comp.sources.misc submissions to comp-sources-misc@<backbone> NCoast Public Access UN*X - (216) 781-6201, 300/1200/2400 baud, login: makeuser
joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Josh Sirota) (01/30/89)
>+--------------- >| Ages ago, I said: > weeks ago) and found Telix to be fantastic except for one major flaw ... > it's too damned slow to use at 9600 baud. And then in article <176@oregon.uoregon.edu> goes@oregon.uoregon.edu (Jim Goes) wrote: > Au contraire. Must be a problem on your end, not the software. Possibly the > interface between Telix and 9600b modems? I regularly use Telix 3.11 to And then in article <2816@ihuxy.ATT.COM> vg55611@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Gopal) wrote: > The max. speed possible is probably a function of the CPU speed of your > machine. Each character coming in generates an interrupt, and the interrupt > has to be processed fully before the next character can arrive for proper > operation. Compare your CPU speeds! And then finally in article <13372@ncoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) wrote: >I doubt that's it. I use Telix at 9600 baud on 4.77MHz 8088 systems (ITT >XTRA, Toshiba T1000) all the time and have no speed problems (I have flow >control turned off so I can run Jove, so there's no hidden XON/XOFF stuff >making it look like it works). I clearly should have qualified my statement. I think Gopal was really right. I don't have flow control problems (I use JOVE too, all the time) - the problem that I have with Telix (and, incidentally, every other PD/Shareware terminal emulator I tried) is that these things are just plain slow in writing to the screen. I don't lose characters. What happens is that it simply takes about 10 times longer (purely subjective measurement) to fill the screen with text for Telix than it does for Procomm+ ... and it's too frustrating to wait. My machine is an 8MHz AT, and that's probably the source of the difference. So - that's very nice for all of you that have slow machines - I'm glad you can use a great program like Telix! Now, could someone get back to the author of the thing and tell him that he's got a great program that's just too slow for fast(er) machines? I wish I could use it! Josh -- Josh Sirota INTERNET: joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu BITNET: joss_ss@uordbv.bitnet sirota@cs.rochester.edu UUCP: ...!rochester!sirota
joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Josh Sirota) (01/30/89)
Ages ago, I said: > weeks ago) and found Telix to be fantastic except for one major flaw ... > it's too damned slow to use at 9600 baud. And earlier today, I said: > I clearly should have qualified my statement. I don't have flow control > problems (I use JOVE too, all the time) - the problem that I have with Telix > (and, incidentally, every other PD/Shareware terminal emulator I tried) is > that these things are just plain slow in writing to the screen. I don't > lose characters. What happens is that it simply takes about 10 times longer > (purely subjective measurement) to fill the screen with text for Telix than > it does for Procomm+ ... and it's too frustrating to wait. Oops. Since I've already had two people ask, I also should have said that I *do* have Telix configured for direct screen writes. That's not the problem. I'm quite convinced it has to do with the algorithms used by the two programs, or maybe the compiler that was used, or something like that. In any case, it's not just a configuration issue. One program is faster than the other at doing essentially equivalent tasks. Sorry this all took 3 postings. Josh -- Josh Sirota INTERNET: joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu BITNET: joss_ss@uordbv.bitnet sirota@cs.rochester.edu UUCP: ...!rochester!sirota