Executor 2.0/executorv2.0.iso/pc/dos/extra/docs/maillist/text/archive.95/text6633.txt

Internet Message Format | 1996-03-31 | 1.6 KB

From: John Edward Bauer <[e-mail]>
To: Fred Salerno <[e-mail]>
cc: [e-mail]
Subject: baud compared to bps, ignore if you really don't care, WAS: Re:, 1.99p6 for everybody!
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.951113024833.6663A-100000@plains>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, 12 Nov 1995, Fred Salerno wrote:

> Sounds true. With a limit of 5 FTP users at ARDI, and a connection of
> 28.8 baud, each user gets around 5000 baud.
> At that rate, a three meg download would take three hours or so!

Not to get on your case, or flame you at all but I thought I would correct
you on something. Baud and bps are two different things. Baud is the
number of times a signal changes state in one second, so 2400 baud
straigt up would be 2400 bps. However, with compression, v.32 for
example, 14400 bits are being transfered within 2400 signal changes.
Damn good compression. 6:1. As I understand it, every household can do 2400
baud with newer phone lines capable of 9600 baud. As for 28.8 Kbps and
v.34 I don't know if it requires higher than 2400 baud.. anyone know?
12:1 compression seems *real* high.  Again, this is not to disrespect you in
anyway, I know I like learning about these things... if anyone can set me
straight about something let me know.

Sorry about the unrealated content to the list.


John Edward Bauer <[e-mail]>

It's not how high you jump, it's how you walk away.
                    <unknown>