Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccicpg!arnold!dave
From: dave@arnold.UUCP (Dave Arnold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Hayes 9600 sysop offer - a sour deal.
Summary: Why is Zmodem better than UUCP 'g'
Message-ID: <218@arnold.UUCP>
Date: 16 Oct 88 16:17:42 GMT
References: <8810081712.AA14615@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <1394@percival.UUCP> <9283@bigtex.cactus.org>
Organization: Home, Mission Viejo, Ca
Lines: 16

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.
-- 
Dave Arnold (dave@arnold.UUCP)
Work: Volt Delta Resources     Phone: (714) 921-7635
Home: 26561 Fresno street,  Mission Viejo, Ca  92691