Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!vsi1!lmb
From: lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Which is best?
Message-ID: <1125@vsi1.UUCP>
Date: 20 Oct 88 16:54:35 GMT
References: <9515@conexch.UUCP>
Reply-To: lmb@vsi1.UUCP (Larry Blair)
Organization: VICOM Systems Inc., San Jose, CA
Lines: 18

In article <9515@conexch.UUCP> root@conexch.UUCP (Larry Dighera) writes:
=I came across the following article, and thought readers of this 
=news group might be interested in its content.
=
=1)  The turn-around delay is very long compared to conventional modulation
=techniques because data must be sent in large blocks.   A typed character may
=take several seconds to be echoed back to the system that sent it.  As a
=result, the system fails to achieve the illusion of full duplex and is not
=really suited to interactive online sessions.

Wrong!  My TB+ has nearly full-duplex response in interactive mode.  I've
also tried running uucp between two TB's running PEP w/o the spoofing,
and while it's not blazingly fast, the turn-around is no where near even
one second.  I'd be interested in hearing the accurate figure from Telebit,
but I would guess that it is somewhere around 150ms.

-- 
Larry Blair   ames!vsi1!lmb   lmb%vsi1.uucp@ames.arc.nasa.gov