Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!news.funet.fi!assari.tut.fi!h112706
From: h112706@assari.tut.fi (Herranen Henrik)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Modems
Message-ID: <1990Sep17.112427.11215@assari.tut.fi>
Date: 17 Sep 90 11:24:27 GMT
References: <826.26EF2259@weyr.FIDONET.ORG> <90256.111652UH2@psuvm.psu.edu>
Organization: Tampere University of Technology
Lines: 21


In article <90256.111652UH2@psuvm.psu.edu> UH2@psuvm.psu.edu (Lee Sailer) writes:
>The main practical advantage of MNP is that, because of the compression,
>transmission rates can be higher.  If you can pack 100 bytes of text
>into 50 bytes of binary gibberish, and then unpack them at the other
>end, then your 1200 bps modem will seem to run at 2400 bps.
>
>It occurs to me.  Does this mean that little will be gained for the
>transmission of ZOO and LZ files, since they are already compressed?
>(assuming error free lines, of course)

Yes. The MNP packing method is quite simple, much simplier then the one used
with ZOO and LZH-files, so I don't there will be any gain (except error free
transmission) while moving packed files.



-- 
  Name:     Henrik 'Leopold' Herranen  h112706@lehtori.tut.fi
  Address:  TTKK/P{{rakennuksen neuvonta/PL527/33101 Tampere/Suomi Finlandia

  "On d{htinen daevas ja kuutamoy|, on morsiamelta katkaistu p{{"   E.L.1989