Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
From: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: XMODEM,YMODEM,ZMODEM,KERMIT Which is best and why?
Keywords: ZMODEM
Message-ID: <1975@crdos1.crd.ge.COM>
Date: 3 Jan 90 17:52:46 GMT
References: <32428@news.Think.COM> <1989Dec31.210253.25273@delta.uucp> <1636@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Organization: GE Corp R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 21
Reply-exos:@crdgw1:To: davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)

In article <1636@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michielsen) writes:

| Kermit, Is best because it's free.  It works pretty well for transfers of
| files & the terminal emulation is pretty robust. However, it requires kermit
| running at both ends & setup compatible to do file transfers.

  Hate to shock you, but there are free implementation of [XYZ]modem and
commercial implementations of Kermit.

  Zmodem and window Kermit will run well over packet connections (and
that includes some ECC modems) while the others suffer because of line
turnaround time. They produce the best throughput over clean lines, too,
but they are not as common as plain Kermit and Xmodem.

  Zmodem seems to work better on a noisy line, due to changing the
packet size.
-- 
bill davidsen	(davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen)
"The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called
'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see
that the world is flat!" - anon