PE> 57600 will not give me anything that 38400 won't. 

BG> Of course it will - it'll allow you to transfer compressed data at full 
BG> speed with 33600 connects (I've already logged speeds in excess of 4000 cps 
BG> here).

PE> 119%?  I'd like to see that. 

I didn't say it was impossible, the bit stripping is a theoretical
25%.  I said I'd like to see it, seeing as I haven't seen anything
above 115% here yet.  Maybe I should list that as another USR bug.

BG> There you go again.  Take off the blinkers, Paul.  Not only did I get 4000 
BG> cps with Russell Brooks' Courier V.34+, he just happened to be here to see 
BG> it when it happened.  Oh dear, an independant witness - sorry about that. 
BG> :)

PE> Did you do your stats on a large (500k) file to get proper stats?

BG> Yep, 95SJONG2.ZIP from David, 1.35Mb in size.  Big enough for you?

Yes, that's fine.  Since I can't see it first-hand because I have
a crappy modem, I have to make sure that we're looking at the
same things.

PE> Also, 38400 should be less strain on my computer I have been told.

BG> That's crap Paul.  It's true on XTs perhaps, but not with the faster 486s, 
BG> which will happily MT with port speeds of even 115200.  Ask Rod.

PE> He agreed that it was more strain? 

BG> Now you're just being intentionally silly.

No, I'm not.  You said ask Rod, which I did.  You didn't like his
answer obviously, and are attempting to fake away madly.  Nice one,
Bill.  Next time don't ask me to ask Rod, just state it as your
own opinion.

PE> But can still cope anyway.  I agree, I doubt that it would put >1% extra 
PE> strain on my computer. The main reason was I didn't think there was any 
PE> point, even for 1%.

BG> I've already told you that with your port locked at 38400, the fastest it 
BG> will allow data through is at 3840cps (in reality, it's a tad less than 
BG> that), so with a 33k6 connect, you immediately lose ~200 cps from your top 
BG> speed.  IOW, you'll NEVER see 4000 cps unless your port is locked at 57600 
BG> or higher.

BG> Is that clear enough for you yet?

Yes, which is a reason to up my com port speed.  I had always 
intended to do that, in fact I would like to up it to 115200 in
case I end up transferring uncompressed files, it's just that I
was doing it one step at a time.  I had to quickly upgrade to
57600 only because of a bug in the USR, ie failure to auto-detect
baud rate.

BG> Note also the delay in the command, which was put in for a reason (although 
BG> I forget exactly what that reason was now).  :)

PE> A bug in the USR Courier I would assume.

BG> No, it applied equally to all of my Sportsters.

PE> A generic USR bug then.  What a pity you didn't document it.

BG> Nope, it applied to several other HS modems as well.  I think that Binkley 

I have no delay and it is working.  Try again.  And then let us
know what modem it is.  It is possible that there is a difference
anyway though, because I am likely to be running through a 
different code sequence (depends on who hangs up first).
BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---