gandrews@netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) (06/12/91)
In article <9154@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> s142075@fred.ucdavis.edu (Brewski Rogers) writes: > >full-duplex 9600 bps is just about the dumbest thing I ever heard of. >Anyone who NEEDS to send AND receive at full speed (as opposed to >1 9600 bps and 1 450 bps channel) please respond. I'd be glad to hear >what all that extra technology is being used for. > Gladly. Error control protocols: o Windowed file transfer protocols such as UUCP-G, Compuserve B+, Kermit (windowing extension), and others that don't see a lot of use by folks who only call BBS systems (windowed forms of XMODEM, SEAlink, etc.). o Communications protocols used in almost every remote-control program for micro computers like the IBM PC and Macintosh, such as Timbuktu Remote, Carbon Copy, PC Anywhere, etc. Network protocols: o Network protocols such as SLIP, Asynchronous DEC-Net, AppleTalk, Banyan, Multitudes of PC network asynchronous bridge protocols, etc. (this includes where an NFS drive is remotely mounted via a modem link - horribly slow, but some people do it) o X-Windows and similar graphics terminal protocols. If HST were sufficient, then why would USR spend time building V.32 and V.32bis full duplex modems? Reason: There's more to life than downloading GIF pictures from your local BBS. -- .------------------------------------------------------------------------. | Greg Andrews | UUCP: {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!gandrews | | | Internet: gandrews@netcom.COM | `------------------------------------------------------------------------'