Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!cwruecmp!hal!ncoast!wb8foz From: wb8foz@ncoast.UUCP (David Lesher) Newsgroups: comp.terminals Subject: Re: Good Fast VT-100 compatable Message-ID: <1838@ncoast.UUCP> Date: Sun, 21-Dec-86 12:59:09 EST Article-I.D.: ncoast.1838 Posted: Sun Dec 21 12:59:09 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 22-Dec-86 23:37:15 EST References: <83@rdlvax.UUCP> <1825@ncoast.UUCP> <4324@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU> Reply-To: wb8foz@ncoast.UUCP (David Lesher) Distribution: world Organization: Cleveland Public Access UNIX, Cleveland, OH Lines: 34 ...discussion on term throughput.... # This is simply not true. I've used many vt100 compatibles and found # that with today's technology, 9600 baud simply isn't that much of a # big deal. I stand by my remark. The results were not obvious. I had an expensive Tek 834 rs-232 test set in the line. Two things became clear as I got deeper into it. First, most data sources (ie the PDP-11/34 I used to make test data) were not fast enough to provide real 9600 data. I had a software priest write me a test prgm in octal that I punched in from the front panel to cure that. When that problem was solved, the 834 showed regular X-OFFs coming back from all the terms in ?. Granted X-ons came soon after that, (sorry no results data here for exact #s) Disabling the Xon-off on the terms stopped the xoffs etc., but the terms overran. Sometimes you could see it, other times you had to stop the whole works and scroll the buffers back. Please remember my work was WORST CASE. I crammed all alpha data (no spaces, nulls or extra stop bits) as fast as I could. This does not say that things have not changed in the last 24 months, but I doubt it. What source of full speed, LONG (32K characters) 9600 baud did you use for your tests? -- decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!wb8foz ncoast!wb8foz@case.csnet (ncoast!wb8foz%case.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA) "SERIOUS? Bones, it could upset the entire percentage!"