Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!pyrnj!esquire!esquire.dpw.com
From: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm
Subject: Re: Telecom Software
Message-ID: <2641@esquire.dpw.com>
Date: 9 Sep 90 20:42:35 GMT
References: <6893.26E3510E@fidogate.FIDONET.ORG> <1990Sep08.125615.14907@ddsw1.MCS.COM>
Sender: news@DPW.COM
Reply-To: baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten)
Organization: Davis Polk & Wardwell
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen)

In article <1990Sep08.125615.14907@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, hammen@ddsw1 (Robert Hammen) writes:
>I've never conducted any "scientific" tests to prove this, but it's always
>been my perception that VersaTerm and VersaTerm-PRO have the best throughput/
>screen update speeds of all the Mac comm. programs I've used. My biggest
>gripe with VersaTerm is that it doesn't directly support Zmodem file transfers.
>I argued this point over a year ago with Lonnie Abelbeck, the author, and he
>seemed dead-set against implementing it. VersaTerm 4.1 and VersaTerm-PRO 3.1
>do support Apple's Communication Toolbox, so it would be possible for 
>someone to write a Zmodem tool (though I don't know how efficient it would be).

The old MacTerminal did pretty well, too.  I wonder whether 3.0 will
be as good at keeping the screen updated.

Do you know why Lonnie doesn't want to support ZMODEM?  That's really
my only gripe with Versaterm, though I can certainly live with YMODEM.

Somehow I won't hold my breath waiting for the ZMODEM CT tool.  Who's
going to write it?  What incentive do they have, unless it's just
because they want to do the whole Mac community a favor?

--
   Steve Baumgarten             | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
   Davis Polk & Wardwell        |  remember, we were way ahead of you."
   baumgart@esquire.dpw.com     | 
   cmcl2!esquire!baumgart       |                           - David Letterman