Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!hoptoad!pozar
From: pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Hayes 9600 sysop offer - a sour deal.
Message-ID: <5664@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 17 Oct 88 15:30:21 GMT
References: <8810081712.AA14615@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1394@percival.UUCP> <9283@bigtex.cactus.org> <218@arnold.UUCP>
Reply-To: pozar@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Pozar)
Organization: Syncstream/Widget Systems (San Francisco)
Lines: 27

In article <218@arnold.UUCP> dave@arnold.UUCP (Dave Arnold) writes:
>james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
>> Actually, UUCP 'g' does much better with normal 2400bps/1200bps modems
>> than do Xmodem or Kermit.  I assume this is also true on V.32 modems.
>> It's not Zmodem and it's not a full-duplex protocol, but it seems to
>> work well...  Xmodem and Kermit are almost useless over PC Pursuit (which
>> acts half duplex), whereas UUCP 'g' can get 50% throughput.
>
>Okay, somebody tell me why Zmodem is better than UUCP's 'g'?
>Given a window size of 7, and large packet sizes, and 'g's small
>6 bytes header... What makes Zmodem better than 'g'?
>
>Let's clear this up once and for all.

     UUCP 'g' is NOT better.  64 byte packets, widowing of say
     at max 7, and with either satilite delays or funky modem
     turnarounds like HST or Telebits (UUCP spoofing turned
     off), ZMODEM is far better that UUCP 'g'.  Zmodem can also
     pick up in the middle of a file if the connection was
     lost.
		Tim

-- 
 ...sun!hoptoad!\                                     Tim Pozar
                 >fidogate!pozar               Fido:  1:125/406
  ...lll-winken!/                            PaBell:  (415) 788-3904
       USNail:  KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane /  San Francisco CA 94108