Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mailrus!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request From: phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom Subject: Telebit T1000 Modem at 9600 Baud Message-ID: <9546@accuvax.nwu.edu> Date: 9 Jul 90 07:47:07 GMT Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu Reply-To: Phil Ngai Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Sunnyvale CA Lines: 19 Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 471, Message 6 of 10 A couple years ago, I went from 2400 to Telebit for dial-in, interactive use. I was unimpressed. I found the packetization disturbing. The average delay from when I did something to when the first character of a response came back seemed greater. After that, of course, the characters came in faster. But I think the delay to first character is what's important. I can't read at 2400 anyway. If there was no way to select what I want to display then it would be nice to display the stuff I don't need faster, but usually I can skip to exactly what I want and after that, the difference between 2400 and 9600 is not that important. For UUCP, Telebit is probably worth considering but for dial-in, I didn't like it. Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil PALASM 90: it's not the same old PALASM any more!