need for RTS/CTS at high speeds (was re: SCO RTS/CTS Setup)

[Greg Andrews]

In article <1991Apr11.180712.1779 at mccc.edu> pjh at mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) writes:
>In article <1991Apr10.010317.22511 at netcom.COM> gandrews at netcom.COM (Greg Andrews) writes:
>=In article <1991Apr8.173125.22219 at mccc.edu> pjh at mccc.edu (Pete Holsberg) writes:
>=>A computer magazine recently tested a number of communications programs
>=>at various speeds and published the results.  They said that at higher
>=>transfer rates (57.6K and 115.2K), they used RTS/CTS handshaking because
>=>(I'm paraphrasing) that's what you had to use when you had high speed
>=>modems.  
>=>
>=
>=(sounds like the PC Mag review - no comment)
>
>Aw, you found me out!  And please *do* comment.  That was really the
>point of my posting, because they found that certain programs ran MUCH
>faster when they did not use RTS/CTS (over a null modem) that when they did!!
>

After the modem review in the fall where PC Mag said the T2500 had trouble
passing data across impaired lines in PEP mode (remember the resulting
discussion here?), and the recent V.22bis modem review where three different
modems all registered ~230 cps transfer rate across 'average' phone lines
on a compressed file with an MNP5 connection, well...

I don't put my faith in PC Mag's test results.  Their articles are getting
better as far as having fewer technical mistakes, but I still entertain
doubts about their testing competence.

You asked for my opinion - you got it.

-- 
.------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|  Greg Andrews   |       UUCP: {apple,amdahl,claris}!netcom!gandrews    |
|                 |   Internet: gandrews at netcom.COM                      |
`------------------------------------------------------------------------'