Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!cs.dal.ca!dal1!mike
From: mike@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: kermit vs. xmodem - was Re: kermit problem
Message-ID: <1424@ac.dal.ca>
Date: 9 Apr 90 14:46:20 GMT
References: <14836@s.ms.uky.edu>
Lines: 9
Organisation: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <14836@s.ms.uky.edu>, slogan@ms.uky.edu (Stan Logan) writes:
> The kermit and xmodem protocols MAY be near each other in transfer time, I
> don't know.  But I do know that the c64 implementation of Kermit is the
> bottleneck in any case.  The packets it transfers are <100 bytes long, while
> XMODEM transfers 256 bytes at a time.

Sorry, only Punter Protocol transfers 256 bytes... Standard Xmodem does 128
bytes, and Xmodem1-K does 1024 at a time.. and xmodem is very much
faster than kermit... and punter is faster still...