Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!iuvax!news!cartan!ndmath!nstar!larry
From: larry@nstar.uucp (Larry Snyder)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: USRobotics Courier HST/ix?
Message-ID: <1990Oct18.181733.18413@nstar.uucp>
Date: 18 Oct 90 18:17:33 GMT
References: <540.2718D7BC@zswamp.fidonet.org> <1990Oct15.120645.7065@nstar.uucp> <1990Oct16.172741.13979@cbnews.att.com>
Organization: Northern Star Communications, Limited
Lines: 21

mjs@cbnews.att.com (martin.j.shannon) writes:

>And I contend that may be true if you use 'g' protocol, but if you (and
>your neighbor) can use 'e' protocol, any of the current (small) flock
>of 14400 b/s modems that support full error correction and flow control
>should perform similarly.  Further, 'e' protocol *should* (I can't say
>for sure -- I don't have source available) use less CPU in the uucico
>process (no packet assembly/disassembly).

I am considering replacing the HST (14.4) modems with V.32
with v.42bis and MNP5 here on nstar - with the idea that 
UUCP throughput with the V.32 and v.42bis will be very close
to that of the PEP modems.  Do you agree (that V.32 and PEP will
produce about the same throughput on uucp transfers)?


-- 
       Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA 
 {larry@nstar, uunet!sco!romed!nstar!larry, nstar!larry@ndmath.math.nd.edu}
                     backbone usenet newsfeeds available
         Public Access Unix Site (219) 289-0282 (5 high speed lines)