home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
kermit.columbia.edu.tar
/
kermit.columbia.edu
/
newsgroups
/
misc.20030409-20031118
/
000229_fdc@sesame.cc.columbia.edu_Sat Aug 16 13:56:23 EDT 2003.msg
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
2003-11-18
|
2KB
|
48 lines
Article: 14467 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 13:55:58 -0400
Organization: Columbia University
Lines: 31
Message-ID: <bhlr7e$h85$1@sesame.cc.columbia.edu>
References: <vjqa485l4taf82@corp.supernews.com> <8ce22d01.0308160858.62c9d9b3@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sesame.cc.columbia.edu
X-Trace: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu 1061056559 29429 128.59.59.56 (16 Aug 2003 17:55:59 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: postmaster@columbia.edu
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Aug 2003 17:55:59 GMT
Xref: newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu comp.protocols.kermit.misc:14467
In article <8ce22d01.0308160858.62c9d9b3@posting.google.com>,
Dan Skinner <JDanSkinner@JDanSkinner.com> wrote:
: ...
: I have noticed a difference in perceived response between
: dialups/serial and telnet/ssh connections with K95 also. I have also
: noticed a perceived difference between response of K95 telnet/ssh and
: some other clients like PuTTY. I have always said that PuTTY is high
: performance like a Lotus Elan while K95 is high performance like a BMW
: M5. Sorta like the difference between quick and powerful.
:
: My guess is it may be the way K95 assembles outgoing packets compared
: to others using network connection and compared to K95 character
: output?
:
: Maybe Frank or Jeff will give us a little primer?
:
Comparing K95 with PuTTY is not the same as comparing a K95 modem
connection with a K95 Telnet connection. Every emulator has its own
way of dealing with the tradeoffs between round-trip delay (echoing)
and scrolling performance -- two mutually antagonistic concepts.
One obvious difference between PuTTY and K95 is that PuTTY is a lot
smaller since, as you say, it doesn't do as much:
http://www.columbia.edu/kermit/winsshclients.html
This fact alone might account for a noticeable speed difference in
certain situations. But on the other hand, K95 is infinitely faster than
PuTTY on a modem connection :-)
- Frank