home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!mips!darwin.sura.net!wupost!waikato.ac.nz!canterbury.ac.nz!chem!davis
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
- Subject: Re: HST & SUpra: which is faster?
- Message-ID: <1992Aug26.121203.517@csc.canterbury.ac.nz>
- From: davis@chem.canterbury.ac.nz (John Davis)
- Date: 26 Aug 92 12:12:02 +1200
- Reply-To: davis@chem.canterbury.ac.nz
- References: <3626@faatcrl.UUCP>
- Organization: Chem Dept, Uni of Canty, Chch, New Zealand
- Nntp-Posting-Host: chem.canterbury.ac.nz
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
- Lines: 31
-
- Jack Radigan (jprad@faatcrl.UUCP) wrote:
- > kehlet@kehlet.adsp.sub.org (Jesper Kehlet) writes:
- >
- > >The HST standard uses a backtalk channel at only 450 bps, when
- > >Supra/TwinCom etc. uses a full-blown backtalk on 14,400 bps, so consider
- > >HST the slowest...
- >
- > Name 2 currently supported native Amiga applications that utilize full-duplex
- > communications...
-
- well for a start what about people intending to run SLIP? There the
- full-duplex capability _will_ be needed.
-
- > V.32bis is nice, standardized and getting cheaper all the time.
- >
- > It don't save on phone costs like a 16.8k HST though.
-
- if you're just going to be using things like xmodem/zmodem - sure. If you
- want to get exotic (use slip, bimodem or remote sernet/dnet) though the
- full duplex capability would be more important than pure thruput (and
- we're only talking a 16% speed diff between v32bis and the HST protocol here)
-
- as always, you pays your money and you takes your choice..
-
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
- | o John Davis - davis@chem.canterbury.ac.nz o |
- | o chem194@csc.canterbury.ac.nz o |
- | o John_Davis@equinox.gen.nz o |
- | o (Depart)mental Programmer,Chemistry Department o |
- | o University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand o |
-