Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac.comm:4037 comp.dcom.modems:10160
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!ns-mx!dsiebert
From: dsiebert@icaen.uiowa.edu (Doug Siebert)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Summary of 9600 V.32 bis modem info
Message-ID: <6321@ns-mx.uiowa.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 91 07:10:38 GMT
References: <1CE00001.gxxd0m@tbomb.ice.com> <1991Jun2.233826.29382@hou.amoco.com> <6937@husc6.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@ns-mx.uiowa.edu
Followup-To: comp.sys.mac.comm
Distribution: na
Organization: isca
Lines: 16

In article <6937@husc6.harvard.edu> conrad@popvax.uucp (M20400@c.nobili) writes:
>
>I don't know much about PeeCee compression formats.  Are they so inefficient as
>to allow "116 % efficiency typical"?  I had pointed out that if the same com-
>pression algorithm were used on the files as V.42bis would use if they were not
>compressed, then one should see 1:1 compression ratios on clean lines....  ;-)
>I tend to use GNU compress on UNIX, MacOS, and DOS, so I don't know about the
>ones mentioned above....
>
I'm no expert on modems, but my own personal theory on compressed files being
sent with > 100% efficiency is that the start/stop bits are eliminated for the
most part, allowing potential gains (if all such bits were removed, which would
be impractical) of 25%, leading to efficencies in excess of 120%  Some correct
me if I'm wrong (like I have to ask for this! :-) )