CPS conversion to BPS
Harry Scott
Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
With TP 3.05 I am getting readings showing news downloads of 7000 or so
CPS.My modem speed shows 115000 which I assume is an internal speed,this
has just appeared recently,previously 33600 virtually always.
Do I mutiply the 7000 figure by 8 to get a comparative figure to the
readings I usually see quoted here,of around 40000 or so.If so the speed
would appear to be 56000bps which is the optimum speed I think?
My modem is a Rockwell compatible 56kFlex,voice,speakerphone,1 year
old,bought as part of a 400 MZh Time package.
Thanks for any replies,my first query here by the way.
--
Harry Scott
Martin Jay
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
>With TP 3.05 I am getting readings showing news downloads of 7000 or so
>CPS.My modem speed shows 115000 which I assume is an internal speed,this
>has just appeared recently,previously 33600 virtually always.
>Do I mutiply the 7000 figure by 8 to get a comparative figure to the
>readings I usually see quoted here,of around 40000 or so.If so the speed
>would appear to be 56000bps which is the optimum speed I think?
I had a similar problem with my modem. Simply running the .ini file on
it's set up disc corrected it. There is an AT modem command that
instructs the modem what information to return about connection rates,
which will probably be documented in the modem's manual.
Data sent and received by your modem will be compressed, and achieving
7000cps via a 33,600 connection when collecting news, email, etc, is
probably pretty average.
--
Martin Jay
Harry Scott
<mar...@bona.demon.co.uk> writes
I was not given a modem manual so am at a loss to understand that aspect
and the ini. file and set up disc are foreign to me.Thanks.
--
Harry Scott
James Coupe
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
Unfortunately, no.
BPS represents the raw amount of data your computer receives. The CPS
starts to represent how much data is *actually* there, compressed.
Some files, like downloading the latest Quake patch, say, are binaries
and don't compress well - so the CPS and BPS are likely to be very
similar. Some things, like lots of text, compress very well, and the
two are likely to be very different.
--
James Coupe If you read a uk.* newsgroup, read uk.net.news.announce
Words to try and work into conversation #5:
Eirenarch.
Martin Jay
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>Do I mutiply the 7000 figure by 8 to get a comparative figure to the
>>>readings I usually see quoted here,of around 40000 or so.If so the speed
>>>would appear to be 56000bps which is the optimum speed I think?
>>Data sent and received by your modem will be compressed, and achieving
>>7000cps via a 33,600 connection when collecting news, email, etc, is
>>probably pretty average.
>I was not given a modem manual so am at a loss to understand that aspect
>and the ini. file and set up disc are foreign to me.Thanks.
Oh well, never mind.
Let's just say that your modem is set up incorrectly and the 7000cps
you're seeing is about average for a 33,600 connection.
It's not possible to calculate your connection speed from cps
throughput, and it's *extremely* unlikely that you're connecting at
56,000bps.
--
Martin Jay
John Woodgate
Not really. All these figures are best considered only as indications of
'fast', 'slow' or 'normal'. The only figures that actually matter will
be those on your phone bill!
--
Regards, John Woodgate, Elector of Rayleigh, Grand Four-cusped Astroid of the
First Order of Magnitude. OOO - Own Opinions Only. Phone +44 (0)1268 747839
Fax +44 (0)1268 777124. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
***PLEASE DO NOT E-MAIL COPIES OF NEWSGROUP POSTS TO ME***
Harry Scott
<j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> postulated feebly
><YVWY+BAg...@hascot.demon.co.uk>, Harry Scott
><ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>>Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
>
>Not really. All these figures are best considered only as indications of
>'fast', 'slow' or 'normal'. The only figures that actually matter will
>be those on your phone bill!
My phone bill is not of great consequence so forget that and I still
think that these speeds of various types must be linked mathematically.
My main activity is downloading news,usually hundreds of items 10 times
per day or so.Your advice is not well received here,flippancy being a
waste of everybody's time and I would have been happier with an
intelligent reply or less time downloading rubbish like you spout.
--
Harry Scott
Alan Teeder
cps = (8+1+1) x bps. - easy init.
--
Alan Teeder
email ajte...@v-twin.demon.co.uk
tel +44 (0)1483 561960
Home Page http://www.v-twin.demon.co.uk
ICQ 45965351
Harry Scott <ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MTa9$GATjo...@hascot.demon.co.uk...
Martin Jay
<ajte...@v-twin.demon.co.uk> writes
>For 8 bit ascii characters, with 1 start and 1 stop bit the conversion is
>cps = (8+1+1) x bps. - easy init.
However Harry's original post suggests he's trying to compute connection
speed from a throughput figure.
--
Martin Jay
Paul Terry
>Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
I don't think there's any simple conversion system, since there can be
between 7 and 10 bits per character, depending on context. As a rule of
thumb, divide by about 9 to get from bps to cps. Dave English posted
an interesting article here earlier this year, explaining how the
various protocols and compression systems all add their own overheads to
the raw data that is exchanged, and showing how all the various ways
people use to measure throughput have some faults.
>With TP 3.05 I am getting readings showing news downloads of 7000 or so
>CPS.My modem speed shows 115000 which I assume is an internal speed,
It is the speed at which your modem speaks to your computer (the DTE
rate).
>this
>has just appeared recently,previously 33600 virtually always.
33600 is the speed at which your modem speaks to Demon (the DCE rate).
Usually, when Windows displays DTE instead of DCE it means that the
modem is being used with the wrong modem .inf file. This could have
happened if, and when, the modem was upgraded to 56K Flex.
However, 56K Flex is a proprietary system that is now history. You will
not get a 56K connection at all on Demon's Green ROMP, for example -
which may well be why you were only seeing 33.6K - and you risk getting
poor connections on the other ROMPs. You would do much better to upgrade
your modem to V.90, which is the official standard for 56K connections.
>Do I mutiply the 7000 figure by 8 to get a comparative figure to the
>readings I usually see quoted here,of around 40000 or so.
See section 1.7 of the Newuser FAQ ("What speeds should I expect?") -
details in sig.
>If so the speed
>would appear to be 56000bps which is the optimum speed I think?
I think there is a potential source of confusion here. The speed at
which you log on (which is a function of both the quality of your
telephone line and the type of modem you use) is not necessarily
anything to do with the rate at which data will be exchanged.
If you have a so-called 56K modem you will, in all probability, log on
at a DCE of somewhere around 48K - this is because 56K can only really
be achieved under laboratory conditions. In the real world, few
telephone lines can manage more than 52K and some can only manage very
much less. A 33.6K modem (which yours might very well be) can manage the
full 33.6K on a good line - but no more.
However, all of this basically establishes no more than the size of the
pipe down which data can flow. The actual speed of data flow is often
very much less than this. It will depend on:
o how fast the remote server can push data at you (for instance, a slow
and over-loaded server in New Zealand is likely to be much slower
than Demon's news machine sitting in London);
o the type of data (whether it is continuous, like an FTP transfer, or
whether it is something like email that needs an interpolated two-way
conversation that data is been safely received);
o how well your machine can cope with fast-arriving data - in other
words, if your machine loses data through overruns, or the modem has
to take time out to re-negotiate a new line speed, then the effective
throughput rate will be very much slower.
You should also find that the demon.tech.modems FAQs will explain a lot
more.
--
Paul Demon Newuser FAQ http://www.musonix.demon.co.uk/newuser/
posted weekly to demon.ip.support.newuser and demon.answers
or from ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/doc/faq/disn/pt1_v411.txt
and ftp://ftp.demon.co.uk/pub/doc/faq/disn/pt2_v411.txt
John A Hamilton
<ajte...@v-twin.demon.co.uk> writes
>For 8 bit ascii characters, with 1 start and 1 stop bit the conversion is
>cps = (8+1+1) x bps. - easy init.
>
<snip>
While the above is true, remember that the data is being sent as IP
packets each with the overhead of header details etc. containing
source/destination addresses, checksums etc. This overhead can be
substantial on small packets of data (e.g. a Telnet session sending a
single character/keystroke will create at least 3 packets each of around
64 bytes !) Thankfully this overhead reduces with larger packets being
fully loaded with data such as FTP and news downloads.
As someone previously mentioned, data compression of the differing data
within the data stream will make any direct link between the cps and bps
near impossible to determine. Best to take a few 'snapshots' of your
cps and bps and determine an average conversion for the type data you
send/receive.
--
John A Hamilton
John Underwood
wrote in demon.ip.support.turnpike:
(Reference: <MTa9$GATjo...@hascot.demon.co.uk>)
>In article <j1G7wnAo...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
><j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> postulated feebly
>><YVWY+BAg...@hascot.demon.co.uk>, Harry Scott
>><ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>>>Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
>>
>>Not really. All these figures are best considered only as indications of
>>'fast', 'slow' or 'normal'. The only figures that actually matter will
>>be those on your phone bill!
>
>My phone bill is not of great consequence so forget that and I still
>think that these speeds of various types must be linked mathematically.
>My main activity is downloading news,usually hundreds of items 10 times
>per day or so.Your advice is not well received here,flippancy being a
>waste of everybody's time and I would have been happier with an
>intelligent reply or less time downloading rubbish like you spout.
Try chaos theory, I think that is probably the best mathematical
approach, considering the number of factors involved. If you think that
is flippant, then I am sorry, and will bill you in future for my
contributions, then you will not consider wasting MY time. I suspect the
same will be true of John Woodgate's time. He is invariably helpful and
constructive in the comments he offers freely to help those who inquire
here. As to the arrogance of someone who responds to free advice in such
a derogatory, aggressive and offensive manner - I certainly will note
your attitude and never bother to offer you help in future.
--
John Underwood
John Woodgate
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>In article <j1G7wnAo...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
><j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> postulated feebly
>><YVWY+BAg...@hascot.demon.co.uk>, Harry Scott
>><ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>>>Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
>>
>>Not really. All these figures are best considered only as indications of
>>'fast', 'slow' or 'normal'. The only figures that actually matter will
>>be those on your phone bill!
>
>My phone bill is not of great consequence so forget that and I still
>think that these speeds of various types must be linked mathematically.
>My main activity is downloading news,usually hundreds of items 10 times
>per day or so.Your advice is not well received here,flippancy being a
>waste of everybody's time and I would have been happier with an
>intelligent reply or less time downloading rubbish like you spout.
Oh dearie, dearie me! Bad day at the office? I may post in a jocular
vein, but I don't intentionally post either rubbish or unhelpful
comments.
Yes, there is a mathematical relationship. It is a function of about
five variables, and for all practical purposes, it is useless. You would
need a quite sophisticated piece of software, maybe a Mathcad routine,
to evaluate the relationship for just one message, and then not in real
time.
As far as I can see, the only uses anyone could actually make of these
numbers is as a guide to the quality of communication at a given time,
as I originally posted. But people try to relate them to the cost of
being on the net, and that is what is not practically possible. The only
measure that *is* available, and is, or should be, reliable, is the
phone bill, as I said.
John Woodgate
twin.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>For 8 bit ascii characters, with 1 start and 1 stop bit the conversion is
>cps = (8+1+1) x bps. - easy init.
But most stuff does not consist of 8-bit characters, at least, not the
characters that humans can interpret. There are several sorts of
compression, together with 'housekeeping' characters going in both
directions. If it really was that easy, there would always be a 10:1
ratio between the numbers, and HS would never have asked the question.
Mike Clarke
>For 8 bit ascii characters, with 1 start and 1 stop bit the conversion is
>cps = (8+1+1) x bps. - easy init.
Except that (I think) the error detecting algorithm removes the start
and stop bits which would get you to a 10x factor but then each block
has to carry the overhead of a header that reduces this slightly.
--
Mike Clarke
Alan Mackie
Alan :>
>For 8 bit ascii characters, with 1 start and 1 stop bit the conversion is
>cps = (8+1+1) x bps. - easy init.
Except that we all use 8-N-1.
8 bits, no parity, one stop bit.
So we take the bps (accurate or otherwise) and /divide/ by 9.
--
Cheers,
Alan Mackie
Harry Scott
<j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes
Thanks for some replies but I have now had an authorative assessment
which suffices for my peace of mind,and deary deary me,I dont have bad
days at my office,happy soul that I am,and one of my least worries are
telephone bills.Have my answer now and have checked it mathematically in
my own tin pot way and deary deary me who needs experts like you.
--
Harry Scott
Harry Scott
<al...@epemag.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <MTa9$GATjo...@hascot.demon.co.uk>, Harry Scott
><ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <j1G7wnAo...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
>><j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> postulated feebly
>>><YVWY+BAg...@hascot.demon.co.uk>, Harry Scott
>>><ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> inimitably wrote:
>>>>Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
>>>
>>>Not really. All these figures are best considered only as indications of
>>>'fast', 'slow' or 'normal'. The only figures that actually matter will
>>>be those on your phone bill!
>>
>>My phone bill is not of great consequence so forget that and I still
>>think that these speeds of various types must be linked mathematically.
>>My main activity is downloading news,usually hundreds of items 10 times
>>per day or so.Your advice is not well received here,flippancy being a
>>waste of everybody's time and I would have been happier with an
>>intelligent reply or less time downloading rubbish like you spout.
>
>:-/
And there may be more,where are my gloves.
--
Harry Scott
Alan R. Winstanley
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
big snip
>And there may be more,where are my gloves.
I would normally type a pithy riposte at this point, but suddenly I find
that I really can't be bothered...
Instead, I will laud the merits of that most wondrous of things, the
Turnpike killfile. ;-)
--
Alan Winstanley - On-Line Editor email: al...@epemag.demon.co.uk
Everyday Practical Electronics Magazine/ ETI My views are my views.
Bernard Peek
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <$aMMbxBC...@jmwa.demon.co.uk>, John Woodgate
><j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>Thanks for some replies but I have now had an authorative assessment
>which suffices for my peace of mind,and deary deary me,I dont have bad
>days at my office,happy soul that I am,and one of my least worries are
>telephone bills.Have my answer now and have checked it mathematically in
>my own tin pot way and deary deary me who needs experts like you.
I suspect that you do.
You really are a very unpleasant person. Why don't you join the other
unpleasant people in the killfile.
*plonk*
--
Bernard Peek
b...@shrdlu.com
Jack
In article <MTa9$GATjo...@hascot.demon.co.uk>, Harry
Scott <ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>My phone bill is not of great consequence so forget that and I still
>think that these speeds of various types must be linked mathematically.
>My main activity is downloading news,usually hundreds of items 10 times
>per day or so.Your advice is not well received here,flippancy being a
>waste of everybody's time and I would have been happier with an
>intelligent reply or less time downloading rubbish like you spout.
Harry, I want to thank you. After 4 years on-line, 3 of them using
Turnpike, I have finally encountered someone unpleasant
enough to actually make me learn how to use TPs killfile
functions.
Goodbye!
--
Jack
Harry Scott
<a...@skyshots.demon.co.uk> writes
again.
--
Harry Scott
Harry Scott
<pa...@musonix.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <YVWY+BAg...@hascot.demon.co.uk> Harry Scott wrote:
>
>>Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
>
>between 7 and 10 bits per character, depending on context. As a rule of
>thumb, divide by about 9 to get from bps to cps. Dave English posted
>an interesting article here earlier this year, explaining how the
>various protocols and compression systems all add their own overheads to
>the raw data that is exchanged, and showing how all the various ways
>people use to measure throughput have some faults.
>You should also find that the demon.tech.modems FAQs will explain a lot
>more.
have been elsewhere and tangled with "superior type" "adversaries" in
this newsgroup,all good fun really,but I sleep well.Thanks very much
again.
--
Harry Scott
Martin Jay
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>So we take the bps (accurate or otherwise) and /divide/ by 9.
>Thanks very much,clinically superior to some replies I have had.Thanks
>again.
I suppose you now think your connection speed is 63,000bps (7000cps * 9
- see original message at top of thread.)
I don't know why you can't simply configure your modem correctly as I
suggested earlier in the thread.
As I've said before, you cannot calculate connection speed (bps) from a
throughput figure (cps).
--
Martin Jay
Harry Scott
<mar...@bona.demon.co.uk> writes
I dont care what you think I think,my maths are my maths and I am a
pretty nifty mathametician in a different field but I catch on pretty
quick with simple stuff like yours.
--
Harry Scott
Alan Mackie
Martin :>
>>>So we take the bps (accurate or otherwise) and /divide/ by 9.
>
>>Thanks very much,clinically superior to some replies I have had.Thanks
>>again.
>
>I suppose you now think your connection speed is 63,000bps (7000cps * 9
>- see original message at top of thread.)
Of /course/ it isn't that high. But it is possible that it's
/effectively/ that high, due to compression.
>I don't know why you can't simply configure your modem correctly as I
>suggested earlier in the thread.
We can't all be technical geniuses like you, sir.
>As I've said before, you cannot calculate connection speed (bps) from a
>throughput figure (cps).
Correct. Personally I use either the modem log (set it up via Control
Panel) for a referable record or that neat wee icon so thoughtfully
provided on taskbar in Windows '95 and '98.
So simple a technical genius can use it. All it needs is to pass the
mouse pointer over it.
Would you like me to post you instructions on how to do that?
--
Alan
____________
Alan Mackie,
Owner/Manager of Skyshots Aerial Photography - www.skyshots.demon.co.uk
Malcolm Ogilvie
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <787KvQAy...@skyshots.demon.co.uk>, Alan Mackie
><a...@skyshots.demon.co.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>>For 8 bit ascii characters, with 1 start and 1 stop bit the conversion is
>>>cps = (8+1+1) x bps. - easy init.
>>
>>Except that we all use 8-N-1.
>>
>>8 bits, no parity, one stop bit.
>>
>>
>Thanks very much,clinically superior to some replies I have had.Thanks
>again.
Er, no it isn't!
Such rule of thumb calculations, whether dividing by 8 or 9 or any other
divisor, do NOT give you what you originally asked for. But then, when
given a reasonable reply earlier in the thread you promptly snapped at
the giver, so I don't suppose it matters. You just carry on believing
what you want to believe..... And as you don't pay your own phone bills
it really won't matter if 1 cps = 1 bps or 1000 bps or 10,000 bps, will
it?
--
Malcolm
Martin Jay
<ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>I dont care what you think I think,my maths are my maths and I am a
>pretty nifty mathametician in a different field but I catch on pretty
>quick with simple stuff like yours.
And what are the maths then?
Think of a number, double it, subtract three...???
--
Martin Jay
Martin Jay
<a...@skyshots.demon.co.uk> writes
>>I don't know why you can't simply configure your modem correctly as I
>>suggested earlier in the thread.
>We can't all be technical geniuses like you, sir.
You don't need to be a technical genius to install a modem driver or run
a configuration file.
>>As I've said before, you cannot calculate connection speed (bps) from a
>>throughput figure (cps).
>Correct. Personally I use either the modem log (set it up via Control
>Panel) for a referable record or that neat wee icon so thoughtfully
>provided on taskbar in Windows '95 and '98.
>So simple a technical genius can use it. All it needs is to pass the
>mouse pointer over it.
Didn't you read Harry's original post?
"From: Harry Scott <ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: demon.ip.support.turnpike
Subject: CPS conversion to BPS
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 08:28:32 +0100
Message-ID: <YVWY+BAg...@hascot.demon.co.uk>
Is there a simple conversion figure to use?
With TP 3.05 I am getting readings showing news downloads of 7000 or so
CPS.My modem speed shows 115000 which I assume is an internal speed,this
has just appeared recently,previously 33600 virtually always.
Do I mutiply the 7000 figure by 8 to get a comparative figure to the
readings I usually see quoted here,of around 40000 or so.If so the speed
would appear to be 56000bps which is the optimum speed I think?"
Following your (flawed) logic Harry is connected at 115,000bps.
>Would you like me to post you instructions on how to do that?
Yes, please do. I do not understand how you can calculate connection
speed (bps) from throughput (cps).
Turnpike 4.02 says my current throughput is 0cps. Perhaps you'd like to
tell me what figure I get if I put Mr Pointer over those pretty green
icons at the bottom right of my screen.
Oh dear, the cps figure has just changed to 3,866, I hope that won't
make things difficult for you.
--
Martin Jay
Alan Mackie
Martin,
>Yes, please do. I do not understand how you can calculate connection
>speed (bps) from throughput (cps).
You really are an unpleasant little so-and-so, aren't you?
>Oh dear, the cps figure has just changed to 3,866, I hope that won't
>make things difficult for you.
Not at all. The answer you're looking for
Windows reports the line has dropped. Do you wish to redial (Y/N) ? _
--
Harry Scott
<mal...@ogilvie.org> carried it on weakly
>In article <v0vFmLAD...@hascot.demon.co.uk>, Harry Scott
><ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <787KvQAy...@skyshots.demon.co.uk>, Alan Mackie
>><a...@skyshots.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>> Alan :>
>>>
>>>>For 8 bit ascii characters, with 1 start and 1 stop bit the conversion is
>>>>cps = (8+1+1) x bps. - easy init.
>>>
>>>Except that we all use 8-N-1.
>>>
>>>8 bits, no parity, one stop bit.
>>>
>>>So we take the bps (accurate or otherwise) and /divide/ by 9.
>>>
>>Thanks very much,clinically superior to some replies I have had.Thanks
>>again.
>
>Er, no it isn't!
>
>Such rule of thumb calculations, whether dividing by 8 or 9 or any other
>divisor, do NOT give you what you originally asked for. But then, when
>given a reasonable reply earlier in the thread you promptly snapped at
>the giver, so I don't suppose it matters. You just carry on believing
>what you want to believe..... And as you don't pay your own phone bills
>it really won't matter if 1 cps = 1 bps or 1000 bps or 10,000 bps, will
>it?
>
I bit when I thought someone was being flippant and do not apologise for
that.
I *do* pay my own telephone bill and after reading up a little in Demon
Internet Suite(Turnpike) and perusing connect help etc. I will indeed
carry on believing etc.Dont ask for details because I was having a wee
dram or two of the Grouse at the time celebrating an 8-0 football
victory by Newcastle(you will understand that aspect being from the
kilted species I think).
When I said clinical I did not mean clinically accurate because I know
there are variables and my analytical mind copes with that easily.Past
fingers and beads.Your final query is the only reason you have a
reply,lots of tossers in this group,my first query may be my last and
you may need advice sometime.Want to win the lottery?Want a psychic
enhancement?.
--
Harry Scott
Harry Scott
<mar...@bona.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <TapqNSAY...@hascot.demon.co.uk>, Harry Scott
><ha...@hascot.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>>I dont care what you think I think,my maths are my maths and I am a
>>pretty nifty mathametician in a different field but I catch on pretty
>>quick with simple stuff like yours.
>
>And what are the maths then?
>
>Think of a number, double it, subtract three...???
Nah stupid,didn't I tell you about this think thing,thats not maths
thats baby stuff
This first principles of hacking though...........
--
Harry Scott
Robert Bradley
In demon.ip.support.turnpike, Alan Mackie <a...@skyshots.demon.co.uk>
posted...
>Correct. Personally I use either the modem log (set it up via Control
>Panel) for a referable record or that neat wee icon so thoughtfully
>provided on taskbar in Windows '95 and '98.
A slight problem. It duplicates the Turnpike CPS, as 'bytes received'
(except for the 'at 14400 bps' bit *)
*
If your modem is faster, don't expect to see 14400. **
**
And yes, this modem is 14.4k.
--
Robert Bradley
I am not a mindreader, so I don't know everything.