Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!sunic!tut!ra!uwasa.fi!ts
From: ts@uwasa.fi (Timo Salmi LASK)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: XMODEM,YMODEM,ZMODEM,KERMIT Which is best and why?
Keywords: ZMODEM, KERMIT
Message-ID: <1990Jan2.173650.23642@uwasa.fi>
Date: 2 Jan 90 17:36:50 GMT
References: <32428@news.Think.COM> <919@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> <9457@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Organization: University of Vaasa
Lines: 20

In article <9457@spool.cs.wisc.edu> thaler@shorty.cs.wisc.edu (Maurice Thaler) writes:
>In article <919@eecea.eece.ksu.edu> gordon@eecea.UUCP (Dwight W. Gordon) writes:
>>ZMODEM -
>>3.  Not as robust as KERMIT.
>>    a.  noisy environments (bad phone connections) causes troubles
>
>Sorry Dwight, I don't buy this one. ZMODEM is very robust. 32bit-crc

But I do!  Having used both quite heavily, my experience is that
over very difficult conditions (noise, heady load on a remote server
line, etc) kermit is the protocol that is the most likely to get
through.  Under these conditions Z-modem tends to get stuck.  (It
does not send incorrect data, though, which would be intolerable). 
Z-modem is a very nice protocoll under good and fair conditions, and
is a good choice then. 

...................................................................
Prof. Timo Salmi                                (Site 128.214.12.3)
School of Business Studies, University of Vaasa, SF-65101, Finland
Internet: ts@chyde.uwasa.fi Funet: vakk::salmi Bitnet: salmi@finfun