Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!hal!ncoast!allbery From: allbery@ncoast.org (Brandon S. Allbery) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: White Knight and Zmodem Message-ID: Date: 13 Dec 89 00:16:52 GMT References: <11143@csli.Stanford.EDU> <8400198@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) Organization: NCoast Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, OH USA Lines: 27 In-reply-to: gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu's message of 12 Dec 89 17:36:11 GMT In article <8400198@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: So what is the verdict? Who has white knight 11.02? Does it really cure all the problems with zmodem auto-receive? Is it as fast as zterm? Zterm works so well, I am tempted to get WK and convert all my RR9.4 scripts to use zmodem, since 9.4 kermit & my unix kermit seem to misbehave around byte #65K on large uploads. I don't have 11.02 (yet), but I can give some timings on ZTerm vs. WK 11.01: On a large (500K) file, ZTerm gets 96-98% efficiency. WK gets 92% efficiency. Of course, each of these efficiencies is as measured by the programs themselves, and they may not use the same method to calculate it. Caveat user. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info. -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.