Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!rutgers!caip.rutgers.edu!porter From: porter@caip.rutgers.edu (Adam Porter) Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d Subject: Telemate (Was Procomm/Telix) Keywords: PROCOMM, TELIX Message-ID: Date: 1 Jun 90 16:32:18 GMT References: <45944@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <2206@laura.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 29 I have been an enthusiastic Telix user for over 2 years, and I strongly agree that Telix is a stronger communications package than Procomm is. (Although I have heard that the VT100 emulation in Procomm is better.) However, Telemate version 2.11 seems to have an awful lot going for it. I am currently experimenting with it...while the script language isn't as advanced as Telix's, it "multitasks" very effectively within its own environment. While uploading or downloading with any of the popular, built-in protocols, you can flip between the built-in editor, file viewer, backscroll screens, setup screens, and dialing directory. You can even shell to DOS, although the packets seem to stop transmitting during this. The integration of all these screens is practically seamless in this package. Internal and external macros are fast and easy...The true test will be in a multitasking environment. Telemate claims to be DesqView friendly, and I plan to test this out next. But for now, it looks like an EXCELLENT comm program! It can use extended and expanded memory (if you do this, Telemate ends up taking the same amount of conventional memory as Telix does, more or less). There are also some neat features like an array of alarm songs to choose from, variable screen heights, and a very high level of customizability! Please let me know if anyone finds any other good (or bad) points about Telemate...Just make sure you have the current version! I believe previous versions of this program were a little buggy. -- Adam Porter (porter@caip.rutgers.edu) C:\> alp