🚀 go-pugleaf

floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote in
news:87zm4w8djo.fld@barrow.com: 

Thanks for a comprehensive and polite reply...

<SNIP>

>>>> I realize whether the data transmitted is raw, zipped,
>>>> rar'd, yEnc'd or mimed doesn't matter, but I do not
>>>> believe bitrate can exceed 56KB (if that) - and most of
>>>> the others in the thread seem to feel the same way.
>>>
>>> But it does matter, highly.
>>
>>No it does not.
> 
> CBFalconer is correct, it matters.

Maybe. I really don't care. I can't believe that after 
complaining about the OP, I have become the main element in 
continuing the discussion.

<SNIP>

>>Even my nearly 10 year old modem does compression.
> 
> Ten years ago is when modems ceased to be a significant
> factor in computer networking for consumers.  That is the
> mere end of their history.

It will be years until NO ONE on the PLANET uses a dial-up 
modem. I have no intention of even upgrading to a 56 from my 
33.6 until the 33.6 bites it - I realize I am a member of an 
EXTREME minority, of course. 

But MANY people still use modems. People in highly 
industrialized/advanced nations (I read once Holland has every 
home wired for BB, ergo the joys of alt.binaries.boneless etc) 
are not the majority.

<SNIP>

> But, seriously, he is correct about modems that optionally
> do not compress.

There may be such things, I am not aware of them, mine has NO 
options except the IPX header compression on/off, and I don't 
care.

<SNIP>

> The term "baud" was used with FSK modems because it is
> correct. But the first modems introduced as consumer
> products where FSK modems, and when consumer products moved
> to PSK using multiple bits per symbol the consumer
> advertizing continued to use the term "baud" because
> consumers were familiar with it. 

Yes, I knew most of that...

> It was not a technically correct usage, and it had not been
> used in describing the many earlier professional modems
> that used the same techniques.

Yes, I knew that...

> I suspect that your modem allows non-compressed data
> transfers too.

Well if it does, it requires a magic spell since there are no 
options in any of the settings and there is no mention of it in 
the manual (which I have read EVERY word of).

> Disabling compression is not commonly used, but is
> typically available as a configuration option.

Maybe on some modems - not on mine ("U.S. Robotics Sportster 
Voice 28.8 Faxmodem with Personal Voice Mail" / "28.8 v.34 and 
33.6 Faxmodem with Speakerphone and Personal Voice Mail"). It 
mentions "compression" only when mentioning what V.42 bis/MNP 5 
stands for (and which it supports).

>>> Zipped
>>> files are already highly compressed, and cannot be much
>>> further processed.
>>
>>I an aware of the fact you can drink water but not sand,
>>thank you.
> 
> Are you aware that enabling compression increases latency? 
> If your application is sensitive to latency and the data is
> not compressable, the most reasonable modem configuation is
> to disable compression.

I don't know what latency is and my modem does not allow for 
disabling compression. (Just checked what it is. OK. If I really 
cared about speed, I *would* have BB wouldn't I? But I'm in no 
hurry, for anything.)

{I once ran about 6 on-line hours of "Modem Doctor" (or 
something) tests (during which it dialed my ISP at least 500 
times) and it told me my modem was operating at 99.8 efficiency. 
Good enough for me.}

Cheers and thanks for clarifying a few things for me.

P.S.
One of the pages on latency 
(http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/rants/Latency.html) says:

"The solution is easy. You can get two telephone lines, and use 
them together in parallel, giving you a total of 66kbit/sec. If 
you need even more you can get ten telephone lines, giving you 
330kbit/sec. Sure, it's expensive, and having ten modems in a 
pile is inconvenient, and you may have to write your own 
networking software to share the data evenly between the ten 
lines, but if it was important enough to you, you could get it 
done. It may not be cheap, but at least it's possible."

So, not that the OP is around anymore, but apparently one COULD 
use one thousand modems at once. Unless the author of the page 
is wrong.

Sigh.


-- 
Disagreements and the usual insults expected and welcomed.