anderson@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) (11/18/89)
I finally got my Windows 386 going, so now I'm more interested in Windows-based communications programs than I was before. I snarfed WINQVT from Simtel20, and it works pretty well for terminal emulation and file transfer. One problem, though is that the terminal emulation window is not large enough on my hi-res monitor, on which the "big" size is small and the "small" size is microscopic. It looks like the two sizes are given in terms of pixels. There's a related factor about the font it uses. Yet the file transfer window is much larger and seems to use the regular windows screen font. My question: since I can now multitask, I'd like to find a good comm program to run under windows that doesn't present these problems (or maybe I should hope the WINQVT gets some new features?). Anybody have anything to recommend? VT100/102/220 emulation would be best, since it's a Vax I talk to, primarily. ==Jess Anderson===Academic Computing Center=====Univ. Wisconsin-Madison===== | Work: Rm. 2160, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706, Ph. 608/263-6988 | | Home: 2838 Stevens St., 53705, 608/238-4833 Bitnet: anderson@wiscmacc | ==Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu====UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson==
MJB@cup.portal.com (Martin J Brown-Jr) (02/23/90)
I bought Crosstalk for Windows last weekend. I'm NOT impressed!
I would say that it is not very user friendly
The phonebook, which I consider to be the gateway, is, IMHO, poorly
designed. Details upon request.
What other full bodied comm programs for Windows are out there?
Thanx!
- MJB -
USENET: mjb@cup.portal.comhv@uwasa.fi (Harri Valkama LAKE) (02/24/90)
In article <27246@cup.portal.com> MJB@cup.portal.com (Martin J Brown-Jr) writes: >I bought Crosstalk for Windows last weekend. I'm NOT impressed! >I would say that it is not very user friendly >The phonebook, which I consider to be the gateway, is, IMHO, poorly >designed. Details upon request. >What other full bodied comm programs for Windows are out there? Why not try a shareware program (A GOOD ONE) like Telix. Telix works great in a window. You can find the latest version of Telix available for anonymous ftp here in Vaasa, Finland. It's in our pc/comm directory. Address below. -- ----------------Harri Valkama (hv@uwasa.fi)------------- University of Vaasa, Finland anonymous ftp site (128.214.12.3) PC and Mac directories
oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu (Richard Oppenheimer) (02/25/90)
In article <27246@cup.portal.com> MJB@cup.portal.com (Martin J Brown-Jr) writes: >I bought Crosstalk for Windows last weekend. I'm NOT impressed! > >I would say that it is not very user friendly > >The phonebook, which I consider to be the gateway, is, IMHO, poorly >designed. Details upon request. > >What other full bodied comm programs are out there... I have been using Crosstalk for Windows for some time now and find it to be at least average. I agree that the Phone Book is poorly designed. I believe that the features are mainly ports from the DOS equivalents. There are two other pakages I have heard of. One is called APE; it was reviewed in a PC Magazine First Look article and I can't remember the Company's name. The other is Dynacomm. It was the first out and I believe MS uses it extensively. There product support folks regularly recommended it before DCA shipped XTALK for Windows. It also got good reviews in several Pubs. I have seen it advertised, but have yet found someone who carries it. Of course, I was too lazy to call the makers directly. I am satisfied with Xtalk and since I use WIN386 I also can run my procomm software in a window. Background file transfers are the plus for me right now and Xtalk has a pretty extensive script language. Here's my two questions: 1. How do you mark text to be copied in the Xtalk window, and 2. Has anyone used Dynacomm? What do you think? I will summerize if you email me. Richard Oppenheimer Computer Science Center University of Maryland, College Park oppenhei@umd5.umd.edu
dsampson@x102a.harris-atd.com (sampson david 58163) (02/27/90)
In article <27246@cup.portal.com> MJB@cup.portal.com (Martin J Brown-Jr) writes: >I bought Crosstalk for Windows last weekend. I'm NOT impressed! >I would say that it is not very user friendly >The phonebook, which I consider to be the gateway, is, IMHO, poorly >designed. Details upon request. >What other full bodied comm programs for Windows are out there? After I bought Crosstalk for Windows, tried it, and found several bugs, I phoned PC-Connection (whom I bought it from) and told them: 1) I hated the program 2) I found bugs in it 3) Crosstalk should be embarrassed to charge $129 for it, since I don't believe it is worth that price 4) The Shareware program QVT is just as good if not better (however, Crosstalk does have a more extensive script language) 5) Since PC Connection provides recommendations to their users, they should avoid this program and recommend ProComm Plus. PC Connection said if I shipped Crosstalk for Windows back with everything that originally came with the program (manuals, disks, registration card, etc) they would gladly provide a refund. I did, and they did. They guy on the phone said that he uses Procomm Plus and wouldn't switch. I told him that was a smart move since it's about half the price of Crosstalk for Windows and about twice the value. PC Connection gives excellent customer service. I estimate that I've bought about $2K worth of stuff from them. Obviously, I intend to continue doing business with them. Good company! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Sampson Harris Corporation dsampson@x102a.ess.harris.com Gov't Aerospace Systems Divison uunet!x102a!dsampson Melbourne, Florida -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marshall@wind55.seri.gov (Marshall L. Buhl) (02/27/90)
MJB@cup.portal.com (Martin J Brown-Jr) writes: >I bought Crosstalk for Windows last weekend. I'm NOT impressed! >I would say that it is not very user friendly >The phonebook, which I consider to be the gateway, is, IMHO, poorly >designed. Details upon request. I've had it for a few weeks now. I intended to use it for reading news articles on UseNet. I wanted to capture an article that I wanted to followup, edit it using Word for Windows and paste the article back into vi (I HATE vi). The only problem is that Crosstalk can only display data at about 4800 baud (at least on my Dell 325). I normally log in at 19200. When I paste the revised article into vi, I get millions of bells as the Unix host echos back the incoming text. Crosstalk can't keep up with it, so it beeps when the buffer is full. I have enabled both hardware handshaking and XON/XOFF. A data scope told me that it was the PC that was originating the bells - not the Unix system. Microstuf figured it was the remote host. If I slow down to 9600, it still happens, but not as badly. If I slow down to 4800, it goes away. I also timed how long it took to fill the screen. It's the same for 4800 as it is for 9600 and 19200. There must be too much graphics overhead to draw the screen quickly. I guess I need that 100 MHz 80686. Alas, maybe someday, the hardware will catch up with the software - but I doubt it. I'll just want to run more powerful software. I also notice that when I'm editing with vi, I loose cursor positioning information. Text gets inserted at a place different from where the cursor is displayed. I don't have this problem at 19200 with Crosstalk XVI or Mark 4. Anyway, I've gone back to using Crosstalk Mark 4. Crosstalk for Windows just doesn't work well. It's too bad, cause after I figured out how to set things up (not obvious), it seemed like a decent program. I wonder if Windows/386 v. 3.0 will help any. Now, I guess I'm looking for a good Windows comm program that runs at 19200 and can reliably cut and paste to/from WinWord. Anybody seen one? -- Marshall L. Buhl, Jr. EMAIL: marshall@wind55.seri.gov Senior Computer Engineer VOICE: (303)231-1014 Wind Research Branch 1617 Cole Blvd., Golden, CO 80401-3393 Solar Energy Research Institute Solar - safe energy for a healthy future