Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!bbn!rochester!uhura.cc.rochester.edu!joss
From: joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Josh Sirota)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Telix: initial reactions
Message-ID: <744@ur-cc.UUCP>
Date: 30 Jan 89 00:32:20 GMT
References: <19505@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <673@ur-cc.UUCP> <176@oregon.uoregon.edu> <2816@ihuxy.ATT.COM> <13372@ncoast.ORG> <739@ur-cc.UUCP>
Reply-To: joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Josh Sirota)
Organization: Univ. of Rochester, Computing Center
Lines: 27

Ages ago, I said:
> weeks ago) and found Telix to be fantastic except for one major flaw ...
> it's too damned slow to use at 9600 baud.

And earlier today, I said:
> I clearly should have qualified my statement.  I don't have flow control
> problems (I use JOVE too, all the time) - the problem that I have with Telix
> (and, incidentally, every other PD/Shareware terminal emulator I tried) is
> that these things are just plain slow in writing to the screen.  I don't
> lose characters.  What happens is that it simply takes about 10 times longer
> (purely subjective measurement) to fill the screen with text for Telix than
> it does for Procomm+ ... and it's too frustrating to wait.

Oops.  Since I've already had two people ask, I also should have said that I
*do* have Telix configured for direct screen writes.  That's not the
problem.  I'm quite convinced it has to do with the algorithms used by the
two programs, or maybe the compiler that was used, or something like that.
In any case, it's not just a configuration issue.  One program is faster
than the other at doing essentially equivalent tasks.

Sorry this all took 3 postings.

Josh
-- 
Josh Sirota
INTERNET: joss@uhura.cc.rochester.edu        BITNET: joss_ss@uordbv.bitnet
          sirota@cs.rochester.edu            UUCP: ...!rochester!sirota