🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <650020@vx2.GBA.NYU.EDU> spector@vx2.GBA.NYU.EDU (David HM Spector) writes:
> ... most every Macintosh terminal program offers
> qualities that would be the envy of any dedicated terminal.

I agree ... every Mac term program has certain good qualities.  But the point
of my original posting was that I know of no ONE terminal program that offers
EVERY one of the good qualities!  Every existing program lacks in what I
consider to be key features!  

> Even "lowly" MacTerminal offers 5 different kinds of file transfer 
> capabilities 

In article <1917@ur-tut.UUCP> akk2@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (Atul Kacker) writes:
> Have you ever taken a look at what these 5 file transfer protocols are ?
> Text, MacBinary, XModem Text, MacTerminal1.1, Straight Xmodem.
> Now tell me how many DIFFERENT protocols do you see here ?  What else speaks
> MacTerminal1.1 or MacBinary for that matter ?

Yeah, also my point!  MacTerminal's biggest strongpoint is its excellent
vt100/vt102 emulation.  But aside from being able to print from the screen
and record login sessions, it really can't do anything.  Sure, it's got one real
(real = error checking and supported by other programs as well) file transfer
protocol, but even that one isn't the best available today, according to
other responders.  Ymodem and Zmodem are claimed to be up there.

Don't get me wrong ... I've been a heavy-duty Macintosh advocate since the
Mac 128.  But I won't be convinced that it's a serious telecommunications 
competitor until someone can show me a program that meets my original posted
list of qualifications.

I'd love to see someone at Apple or Claris respond to my original posting.
Anyone?


John O'Malley      \  Personal Computing       \  Purdue University \ (317)
j.cc.purdue.edu!ajq \  Learning Resource Center \  Computing Center  \ 494-1787