Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!uoft02.utoledo.edu!desire.wright.edu!cshamis
From: cshamis@desire.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: Interfacing a Commodore 64 with a VAX/VMS
Message-ID: <1991Apr10.112506.3174@desire.wright.edu>
Date: 10 Apr 91 16:25:06 GMT
References: <S!R_S_+@cs.widener.edu> <1991Apr7.012003.423@vax1.mankato.msus.edu> 
 <2HV_JWD@cs.widener.edu> <11611@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <1991Apr9.130813.8840@news.nd.edu>
Organization: University Computing Services, Wright State University
Lines: 22

In article <1991Apr9.130813.8840@news.nd.edu>, treesh@vangogh.helios.nd.edu writes:
> This
> protocol is only useful on modem with MNP-4 or higher.  The reason is becase
> it does not do ANY error checksums, and therefor sends files very fast, and
> and complexity of the protocol is not present like in X-modem-CRC.  The reason
> this protocol can work at all is because with MNP4 implemented in the 
> modem, there will be NO errors in the data.
> 
> ctfm

Please excuse my ignorance on this matter BUT :

  If you have MNP on a modem, why would you even NEED a protocol, while not 
send directly to the modem,  (I mean the modem is allready DOING the error
checking crap)??

  Now I can see that if a file is TOO big to fit in a capture buffer a protocol
is always the way to go but I would think that thats the only benifit.  Am I a
little off base here?

CShamis@Desire.Wright.Edu   <=-=-=-=- Internet.
CShamis@WSU.Bitnet          <=-=-=-=- Redundancy (Yah got tah luv it!)