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!"