home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
kermit.columbia.edu.tar
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
newsgroups
/
misc.20030409-20031118
/
000227_fdc@sesame.cc.columbia.edu_Sat Aug 16 13:00:22 EDT 2003.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
2003-11-18
|
2KB
|
55 lines
Article: 14465 of comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Path: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu!news-not-for-mail
From: fdc@sesame.cc.columbia.edu (Frank da Cruz)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.kermit.misc
Subject: Re: Telnet vs Serial Connections
Date: 16 Aug 2003 13:00:17 -0400
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <bhlnv1$a4h$1@sesame.cc.columbia.edu>
References: <vjqa485l4taf82@corp.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sesame.cc.columbia.edu
X-Trace: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu 1061053218 26598 128.59.59.56 (16 Aug 2003 17:00:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2003 17:00:18 GMT
Xref: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:14465
In article <vjqa485l4taf82@corp.supernews.com>,
Chris Henschen <chris@henschen.com> wrote:
: I have had several inquiries to why a PC telnet connect appears to be
: slower in screen draws, etc. then a serial connection at 38400. We use
: SCO Unix and UnixWare servers with K95 for are emulator on windows. Can
: anyone offer suggestions on this?
:
If a Telnet connection is via Dial Up Networking (i.e. by modem), then of
course it's slower than a directly dialed (non-TCP/IP) connection because of
the additional TCP and IP protocol overhead.
But if you're speaking of a local-area network connection, the effect could
be explained by:
. Overloaded local network (look at the link light).
. The network connection is being shared by other applications that
are using most of the bandwidth.
. High load or low memory on the Windows PC when you happen to be using
Kermit 95 on a network connection.
. A loose or faulty network board or cable, spurious interrupts, etc.
If the Telnet host is outside the local network, you can add Internet
congestion to the list.
Under normal conditions, Kermit 95 is plenty fast on all versions of
Windows (95, 98, ME, NT, 2000, XP), even on slow PCs like the 9-year-old
90MHz Windows 95 Pentium-I machine that I have in the corner, on which a
1000-line scrolling benchmark takes 4 seconds (compared to about one
second on 1.7GHz machine):
ftp://kermit.columbia.edu/kermit/utils/ripple.c
Also see:
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/k95faq.html#echo
- Frank