phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (07/09/90)
A couple years ago, I went from 2400 to Telebit for dial-in,
interactive use. I was unimpressed. I found the packetization
disturbing. The average delay from when I did something to when the
first character of a response came back seemed greater.
After that, of course, the characters came in faster. But I think the
delay to first character is what's important. I can't read at 2400
anyway. If there was no way to select what I want to display then it
would be nice to display the stuff I don't need faster, but usually I
can skip to exactly what I want and after that, the difference between
2400 and 9600 is not that important.
For UUCP, Telebit is probably worth considering but for dial-in, I
didn't like it.
Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
PALASM 90: it's not the same old PALASM any more!peter da silva <peter@ficc.ferranti.com> (07/10/90)
In article <9546@accuvax.nwu.edu> Phil Ngai <phil@brahms.amd.com> writes: > For UUCP, Telebit is probably worth considering but for dial-in, I > didn't like it. I guess it depends on your software, but I find that even vnews takes too long to decide not to display part of a message, so the extra speed of updating is worth it. For dial-in, V.32 is better but PEP is still more fun than V.22. Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.ferranti.com>