Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!dino!sharkey!clmqt!scott
From: scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US (Scott Reynolds)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: XMODEM,YMODEM,ZMODEM,KERMIT Which is best and why?
Keywords: ZMODEM, KERMIT
Message-ID: <1578@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US>
Date: 2 Jan 90 15:47:24 GMT
References: <1990Jan2.070518.1822@csusac.csus.edu>
Organization: Enterprise Information System, Marquette, MI
Lines: 27

Let me first qualify what I say in this article by stating that I didn't
write ZModem (that honor goes to Chuck Forsberg).  These are my personal
opinions and observations.

scott@csusac.csus.edu (L. Scott Emmons) writes:

>I have noticed that ZMODEM fails miserably when attempting transfers through
>a buffered environment, as from what I understand ZMODEM requires stricter
>timing than KERMIT, XMODEM, YMODEM, et al.

This one seems pretty strange to me.  ZModem runs pretty well through
buffered lines, being an ACK-less protocol.  I've done it myself a few
times through a packet network, and I've had no problems I can't
attribute to other things.

"Other things" include, for example, the fact that this 286 box can't
handle continuous 2400 bps receiving from 3 async lines simultaneously
without burping every couple minutes.

The *NIX 2.x versions are in the public domain now, from what I
understand, and I've been using them for over 2 years without problems.
Most people connecting to this system have MS-DOS machines and use
either DSZ or the ZModem built into the Telix package.
-- 
Scott Reynolds			=	$ cat 'a can of tuna'
Enterprise Information System	=	cat: cannot open a can of tuna
scott@clmqt.marquette.Mi.US	..rutgers!mailrus!sharkey!clmqt!scott