TidBITS#367/24-Feb-97
=====================

 Ever wondered what motivates sales people at large consumer
 electronics stores? Money! Read about Ian Gregson's experiences
 over the last holiday shopping season. Also in this issue, info on
 beta releases of Emailer 2.0 and Apple's CFM-68K Runtime Enabler,
 Mark Anbinder looks at the WebTV, and Stuart Cheshire examines in
 detail how latency brings your super-fast new modem to its knees.

Topics:
   MailBITS/24-Feb-97
   Selling Performas at the Front Lines
   An Internet for the TV Generation
   Bandwidth and Latency: It's the Latency, Stupid (Part 1)

<http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/TidBITS-367.html>
<ftp://ftp.tidbits.com/pub/tidbits/issues/1997/TidBITS#367_24-Feb-97.etx>

Copyright 1997 TidBITS Electronic Publishing. All rights reserved.
  Information: <[email protected]> Comments: <[email protected]>
  ---------------------------------------------------------------

This issue of TidBITS sponsored in part by:
* APS Technologies -- 800/443-4199 -- <[email protected]>
  Makers of hard drives, tape drives, and neat SCSI accessories.
  APS price lists: <http://www.apstech.com/aps-products.html>

* Northwest Nexus -- 800/539-3505 -- <http://www.nwnexus.com/>
  Professional Internet Services. <[email protected]>

* Power Computing -- 800/375-7693 -- <[email protected]>
  PowerTower Pro 225 MHz - the fastest desktop system ever.
  Build Your Own Box online! <http://www.powercc.com/>

* EarthLink Network -- 800/395-8425 -- <[email protected]>
  Direct Internet access for Mac users. New Personal Start Page,
  no setup fee for TidBITS readers! <http://www.earthlink.net/>

* Aladdin Systems -- 408/761-6200 -- <http://www.aladdinsys.com/>
  Makers of StuffIt Deluxe 4.0, the Mac compression standard, and
  InstallerMaker 3.1.1, the leading installer for Mac developers.

* Small Dog Electronics -- Special deal for TidBITS#367! <--------- NEW!
  8500/120 16MB/2GB/4xCD Adobe Premiere/After Effects: $1799
  More Info: <http://www.smalldoggy.com/#tid> -- 802/496-7171
  ---------------------------------------------------------------

MailBITS/24-Feb-97
------------------

**CFM-68K Beta** -- Last December, Apple recommended that owners
 of 68K Macs disable the CFM-68K Runtime Enabler because it could
 cause serious crashes and data loss with some applications (see
 TidBITS-356_), and Mac OS 7.6 did not support CFM-68K. Now, Apple
 has released CFM-68K Runtime Enabler 4.0b1 for 68K-based Macs.
 Although Apple stresses that the beta is unsupported (so use it at
 your own risk!), early tests indicate that 68K applications
 requiring CFM can now run, with the exception of Cyberdog 1.2.x or
 2.0. Apple plans to ship the new version of CFM-68K in Mac OS
 7.6.1, an interim release due as early as next month. [GD]

<http://www.macos.apple.com/macos/cfm/cfmbeta.html>


**BBEdit 4.0.3** -- Bare Bones Software has updated BBEdit, the
 commercial version of its popular text editor. (See TidBITS-365_.)
 The new BBEdit 4.0.3 has improved FTP and HTML support, better
 integration with CodeWarrior, and faster launch times, as well as
 better performance on PowerPC 603 and 604 processors. The updater
 is about 2.5 MB. [GD]

<http://www.barebones.com/updates.html>


**Emailer 2.0 Beta** -- Claris has announced a public beta of
 Emailer 2.0, which now stores all its messages in a single file
 (eliminating serious performance and storage problems with earlier
 versions) and features enhanced filtering capabilities. Although
 the Emailer 2.0 beta includes many improvements, my quick tests
 show it's only stable enough for adventurous users. The download
 is about 5 MB. [GD]

<http://www3.claris.com/emailer_beta/>


Selling Performas at the Front Lines
------------------------------------
 by Ian Gregson <[email protected]>

 Do you ever wonder why, when you walk into a large consumer
 electronics store that sells Macs, the sales staff are not always
 very helpful (or sometimes even friendly)? My experiences during
 the last holiday shopping season gave me insight into why some
 Macintosh buyers get the cold shoulder from sales staff.

 I've used a Mac since 1989, and - just before Christmas - I
 subcontracted with Apple on one of their in-store promotions,
 called Apple Demo Days. After two days of training, I went to work
 at the busiest Future Shop store in Canada's greater Vancouver,
 B.C. region - which roughly translated into a pre-Christmas
 shopping hell.


**Spiff and Span** -- I found that sales staff get kickbacks
 (called "spiffs") from the computer companies for extra sales.
 Acer, Compaq, IBM, and Apple all give incentives. Guess who gave
 the best incentive at the stores I visited? Acer. Guess who sold
 the most? Acer. Guess who gave the least incentive? Apple. Guess
 which company sold the least? You get the idea.

 Not only do incentives vary from one brand to another, but also
 from one model to the next. For example, the incentives on the
 Performa 6400/200 or 180 were considerably higher than on the new
 6360.

 The incentive scheme is probably the strongest motivator for sales
 staff, and it translates into the sales staff spending more time
 with a potential Acer Aspire buyer than a Macintosh buyer. It also
 translates into sales staff pushing the Acer brand instead of the
 Mac. "Ease of use" or "plug and play" have no meaning when the
 sales staff receives incentives of up to 500 percent more.

 In my time at Future Shop, the Acer Aspire sold at roughly a rate
 of ten to one compared to the Macintosh. It was painful to watch.
 Neophyte computer users had no idea what they were getting
 themselves into. Most of them wanted a cheap machine that got them
 on the Internet. The Aspire does that - eventually.

 I spoke with many of these first-time computer buyers. My first
 question was, "Have you ever considered a Macintosh?" Ninety
 percent of the answers were "no" (and these were the polite
 responses). I often received comments such as, "Is this a joke?",
 "Does it do Windows?", and "My friends all have Windows 95 - why
 should I buy a Mac?" After I bypassed their apparent dread of
 anything Macintosh, people were always impressed with my demo.
 Just putting a disk or CD in the drive and having it appear on the
 desktop amazed people. The ease of use blew people away. Having
 cable TV play through the Mac made people's jaws drop to the
 floor. Some seriously considered the Mac as an alternative (for
 about five minutes), and then bought an Acer anyway.

 On a positive note, 90 percent of the Mac users were pleased to
 see me. I had great conversations with long time Mac fans about
 how great the Mac is and how lousy Apple is at marketing the Mac.
 (The remaining 10 percent were Performa 6400 users who had bought
 their machines when they first went on sale; Apple dropped the
 price by about $700 Canandian two months after their
 introduction).

 It was obvious that new computer users were coming into the store
 with preconceived notions about which computer to buy. They were
 not coming to make a decision, they were coming to buy the
 computer they had already chosen. Combined with the staff's
 motivation to offer the Acer to anyone with the slightest doubt
 about what to buy, this made for comparatively low Mac sales.


**What Should Apple Do?** Apple needs a more aggressive
 advertising strategy in order to outsell the Acer Aspires of this
 world. Though 30-minute infomercials are great, a creative,
 intelligent 30-second ad can be more effective. Every medium must
 be equally considered.

 Although Apple incentives to sales staff have improved (all staff
 at one Future Shop store, for example, received PowerBook 190s for
 having the highest Macintosh sales over a given period), nothing
 convinces commission-paid staff to sell more product than cold,
 hard cash. I know this because I had several members of the sales
 staff asking me to buy their PowerBooks from them.

 If the Mac sales at large electronics stores are so disappointing,
 why are Macs still offered in that channel? Because that's where
 budget-conscious, first-time, don't-know-better computer users buy
 their first machines. Future Shop stores are on the front line in
 the battle for new consumer buying power.

 There are still far more people without home-based computers than
 with them. Apple must convert first-time computer buyers before
 they even enter a store. Combine this with motivating the sales
 staff to introduce Apple products to first-time buyers and Apple
 sales figures could soar.


An Internet for the TV Generation
---------------------------------
 by Mark H. Anbinder <[email protected]>

 The Web has grabbed the attention of many people who hunger for
 information and entertainment, and groups as varied as the
 National Hockey League and the Oregon Shakespeare Festival have
 put huge efforts into making their Web sites attractive and
 informative. But, though TidBITS readers by definition already
 have some form of Internet access, many families lack the
 relatively modern computer, modem, and Internet service account
 needed to get online.

<http://www.nhl.com/>
<http://www.mind.net/osf/>

 New consumer electronics products from Philips Magnavox and Sony,
 both licensing the WebTV name, make Web and email service
 available to anyone whose home has a television set and a phone
 line (just about everyone, although the set and phone jack must be
 in close physical proximity). The sleek, black gizmos cost about
 $300 (plus another $100 if you want the "optional" keyboard - you
 do) and service is about $20 per month, less than most folks pay
 for cable TV.

<http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/webtv/index.html>
<http://www.magnavox.com/hottechnology/webtv/webtv.html>
<http://www.webtv.net/>

 One big advantage of WebTV is that everything's ready. There are
 no software programs to shuffle, no special utilities to download
 if you want to listen to sound or view video, and no out of memory
 errors or general protection faults. The unit has a built-in,
 high-speed modem (33.6 Kbps v.34bis), so all you need to do is
 hook up the cables from the WebTV to your telephone jack, an
 electrical outlet, and your TV.

<http://www.webtv.net/corp/HTML/home.specs.html>

 The WebTV concept is that home users want entertainment and
 information to come to them. The basic WebTV model, with just a
 handheld remote control and no keyboard, meets that goal. You can
 browse to your heart's content, using arrow buttons on the remote
 to move around a Web page, and the Go button to follow a link or
 choose an option. This feels odd to someone accustomed to a mouse,
 but isn't too foreign; it reminds me of programming a VCR.

 WebTV displays Web pages on your television screen. Even if your
 TV is much bigger than most computer screens, it can't display as
 much information: TVs don't have as much resolution as even a 640
 by 480 monitor, though the WebTV's S-Video port provides a
 slightly better picture for TVs that support S-Video. Many Web
 pages look quite different on a WebTV than they do in Netscape
 Navigator or Microsoft Internet Explorer. For instance, thanks to
 the interlaced nature of TV screens, horizontal rules flicker on a
 WebTV if they are only one pixel high. Generally speaking, text
 may wrap differently and graphics may appear elsewhere than the
 designer intended. Web pages designed for unusually large monitors
 (a bad idea in my opinion) will be difficult to deal with.


**Real Updates** -- The latest WebTV version supports RealAudio,
 which enables Web users listen to concerts, newscasts, and other
 sounds in real time. The bandwidth of a modem connection provides
 high enough fidelity that voice (such as a newscast) sounds fine
 and music (such as a concert broadcast) is passable. Early WebTV
 buyers will find that their unit can update itself to include this
 feature and others; when the WebTV developers complete new
 abilities, each unit offers to retrieve the needed software and
 update itself. Updates takes several minutes by modem, so the
 WebTV asks if you'd like to take the time before it does so.


**Email for Everyone** -- WebTV can do email, too, and can keep
 track of up to five private mailboxes. This kind of email is
 probably best suited to writing to the kids at college, or having
 Becky and Timmy drop Grandma a line. The WebTV can't fit enough
 text on a TV screen to show much of an email message at once, and
 the (Helvetica-like) proportional font makes formatted email
 useless, but sending and receiving short messages should work
 fine.

 This brings us to the issue of typing. Most Internet users will
 need to type from time to time, even if they never use email. To
 tell your WebTV to visit "www.cnn.com" or "www.tidbits.com" you
 must type the address. WebTV lets you use the remote control to
 hunt-and-peck on an onscreen keyboard reminiscent of the Newton's;
 this is easy to master (you can even switch between the standard
 QWERTY typewriter layout and an alphabetical arrangement) but
 painfully slow.

 The keyboard uses the same infrared remote control technology as
 the WebTV remote, so you can sit on the couch and type with the
 keyboard on your lap. It's a compact keyboard, and might take some
 getting used to, but it's much better for typing than the remote
 control.


**Mark Likes It!** I was surprised that the WebTV's browser grew
 on me; I've enjoyed the couch-potato approach to Web surfing and
 appreciate the ability to pop up a Web page whose URL appears in a
 TV program or commercial. In other words, even long-time Internet
 users can be heavy WebTV users. Naturally, WebTV's target market
 is the family that doesn't have a computer, but I can see real
 value to adding a WebTV even for a connected family. While you're
 at it, buy one for Grandma, too.


Bandwidth and Latency: It's the Latency, Stupid (Part 1)
--------------------------------------------------------
 by Stuart Cheshire <[email protected]>

 Years ago David Cheriton at Stanford University taught me
 something that seemed obvious at the time - if you have a network
 link with low bandwidth then it's easy to put several in parallel
 to make a combined link with higher bandwidth, but if you have a
 network link with bad latency then no amount of money can turn any
 number of parallel links into a combined link with good latency.
 Many years have passed, and these facts seem lost on the most
 companies making networking hardware and software for the home. I
 think the time has come to explain it.


**Speed & Capacity** -- Even smart people have trouble grasping
 the implications of latency on throughput. Part of the problem is
 the misleading use of the word "faster." Would you say a Boeing
 747 is three times faster than a Boeing 737? Of course not. They
 both cruise at around 500 miles per hour. The difference is that
 the 747 carries 500 passengers where as the 737 only carries 150.
 The Boeing 747 is three times _bigger_ than the Boeing 737, not
 faster.

 If you were in a hurry to get to London, you'd take the Concorde,
 which cruises around 1,350 miles per hour. It seats only 100
 passengers though, so it's the smallest of the three. Size and
 speed are not the same thing.

 On the other hand, if you had to transport 1,500 people and you
 only had one airplane to do it, the 747 could do it in three trips
 while the 737 would take ten. So, you might say the Boeing 747 can
 transport large numbers of people three times faster than a Boeing
 737, but you would never say that a Boeing 747 _is_ three times
 faster than a Boeing 737.

 That's one problem with communications devices today.
 Manufacturers say _speed_ when they mean _capacity_. The other
 problem is that as far as end-users are concerned, the main thing
 they want to do is transfer large files more quickly. It may seem
 to make sense that a high-capacity, slow link would be the best
 thing for the job. What end users don't see is that in order to
 manage that file transfer, their computers are sending dozens of
 little control messages back and forth. Computer commu
nication
 differs from television or radio broadcasting in the interactivity
 of the communication, and interactivity depends on back-and-forth
 messages.

 The phrase "high-capacity, slow link" above probably looks odd to
 you. It looks odd even to me. We've been used to wrong thinking
 for so long that correct thinking looks odd now. How can a high-
 capacity link be a slow link? High-capacity means fast, right?
 It's odd how that's not true in other areas. If someone talks
 about a high-capacity oil tanker, do you immediately assume it's a
 fast ship? If someone talks about a large-capacity truck, do you
 immediately assume it's faster than a small sports car?

 We must start making this distinction again in communications.
 When someone tells us that a modem has a speed of 28.8 Kbps we
 have to remember that 28.8 Kbps is its capacity, not its speed.
 Speed is a measure of distance divided by time, and "bits" is not
 a measure of distance.

 But there's more to perceived throughput than issues of speed and
 capacity, namely latency. Many people know that when you buy a
 hard disk you should check its seek time. The maximum transfer
 rate is something you might also be concerned with, but seek time
 is more important. Why does no one think to ask about a modem's
 seek time? Latency is the same thing as seek time: the minimum
 time between asking for a piece of data and getting it, just like
 the seek time of a disk, and it's just as important.


**Monkey On Your Back** -- Once you have bad latency you're stuck
 with it. If you want to transfer a large file over your modem it
 might take several minutes. The less data you send, the less time
 it takes, but there's a limit. No matter how small the amount of
 data, for any particular network device there's always a minimum
 time that you can never beat. That's called the latency of the
 device. For a typical Ethernet connection the latency is usually
 about 0.3 ms (milliseconds, or thousandths of a second). For a
 typical modem link, ping and traceroute tests show the latency is
 typically about 100 ms, about 300 times worse than Ethernet.

 If you wanted to send ten characters (at eight bits per character)
 over your 33 Kbps modem link you might think it would take:

   80 bits / 33000 bits per second = 2.4 ms

 Unfortunately, it doesn't. It takes 102.4 ms because of the 100 ms
 latency introduced by the modems at each end of the link.

 If you want to send a large amount of data, say 100K, then that
 takes 25 seconds, and the 100 ms latency isn't very noticeable,
 but for smaller amounts of data, say 100 bytes, the latency
 overwhelms the transmission time.

 Why would you care about this? Why do small pieces of data matter?
 For most end-users it's the time it takes to transfer big files
 that annoys them, not small files, so they don't even think about
 latency when buying products. In fact, if you look at the boxes
 modems come in, they proudly proclaim "28.8 Kbps" and "33.6 Kbps",
 but they don't mention latency at all.

 What most people don't realize is that computers must exchange
 hundreds of little control messages in the process of transferring
 big files, so the performance of small data packets _directly_
 affects the performance of everything else on the network.

 Now, imagine you live in a world where the only network connection
 you can get to your house is a modem running over a telephone
 line. Your modem has a latency of 100 ms, but you're doing
 something that needs lower latency. Maybe you're trying to do
 audio over the network. 100 ms may not sound like much, but it's
 enough to cause a noticeable delay and echo in voice
 communications, which makes conversation difficult. Maybe you're
 playing an interactive game over the network. The game only sends
 tiny amounts of data, but that 100 ms delay makes the
 interactivity of the game decidedly sluggish.

 What can you do about this? Absolutely _nothing_. You could
 compress the data, but that won't help: the data was already
 small, and that 100 ms latency is still there. You could install
 80 phone lines in parallel and simultaneously send a single bit
 over each phone line, but that 100 ms latency is still there.

 In other words, once you have a device with bad latency there's
 nothing you can do except replace the device with one that has
 good latency.


**Modem Latency** -- Current consumer devices have appallingly bad
 latency. A typical Ethernet card has a latency less than 1 ms. The
 Internet backbone as a whole also has very good latency. Here's a
 real example:

* The distance from Stanford in California to MIT in Boston is
 4320 km
* The speed of light in vacuum is 300 * 10^6 m/s
* The speed of light in fibre is 60 percent of the speed of light
 in vacuum
* The speed of light in fibre is 300 * 10^6 m/s * 0.6 =
 180 * 10^6 m/s
* The one-way delay to MIT is 4320 km / 180 * 10^6 m/s = 24 ms
* The round-trip time to MIT and back is 48 ms
* The current ping time from Stanford to MIT over today's Internet
 is about 85 ms:
* 84.5 ms / 48 ms = 1.76
* The hardware of the Internet can currently achieve speed
 of light + 76 percent

 So the Internet is doing pretty well. It may get better with time,
 but we know it can never beat the speed of light. In other words,
 that 85 ms round-trip time to MIT might reduce a bit, but it's
 never going to beat 48 ms. The speed can improve a bit, but it
 isn't going to double. We're already within a factor of two of the
 theoretical optimum. I think that's pretty good - not many
 technologies can make that claim.

 Compare this with a modem. Suppose you're 18 km from your Internet
 service provider. At the speed of light in fibre (or the speed of
 electricity in copper, which is about the same) the latency should
 be:

   18000 / (180 * 10^6 m/s) = 0.1 ms

 Although modems vary, the latency over your modem is anywhere from
 75 ms to about 130 ms. Modems are currently operating at a level
 that's more than 1,000 times worse than the speed of light. And,
 of course, latency cuts both ways. If a one-way trip using a
 typical modem has a latency of about 130 ms, then the round-trip
 delay is about 260 ms.

 Of course no modem link will ever have a latency of 0.1 ms. I'm
 not expecting that. The important issue is the total end-to-end
 transmission delay for a packet - the time from the moment the
 transmitting software sends the packet to the moment the last bit
 of the packet is delivered to the software at the receiving end.
 The total end-to-end transmission delay is made up of fixed
 latency (including the speed-of-light propagation delay), plus the
 transmission time. For a 36 byte packet the transmission time is
 10 ms (the time it takes to send 288 bits at a rate of 28.8 Kbps).
 When the actual transmission time is only 10 ms, working to make
 the latency 0.1 ms would be silly. All that's needed is that the
 latency should be relatively small compared to the transmission
 time. About 5 ms would be a sensible latency target for a modem
 that has a transmission rate of 28.8 Kbps.


**Understanding Transmission Delay** -- At each hop, overall
 transmission time has two components: per-byte transmission time
 and fixed overhead. Per-byte transmission time is easy to
 calculate, since it depends only on the raw transmission rate. The
 fixed overhead comes from sources like software overhead, hardware
 overhead, and speed of light delay.

 For modems, the distance is typically short, so speed of light
 delay should be negligible. However, the data rate is low, so it
 takes a long time to send each byte. The per-byte transmission
 time should account for most of the time taken to send the packet.
 To send 100 bytes over a 28.8 Kbps modem should take:

   100 bytes * 8 bits per byte / 28800 bits per second = 28 ms

 That means the round-trip should be twice that, or 56 ms. In
 reality it's often more like 260 ms. What's going on? Two other
 factors contribute to the overall time.

 First, modems are often connected via serial ports. Many modem
 users assume that if they connect their 28.8 Kbps modem to their
 serial port at 38.4 Kbps they won't limit their performance,
 because 38.4 is greater than 28.8. It's true that the serial port
 won't limit throughput, but it will add delay, and delay, once
 added, never goes away. So, sending 100 bytes down the serial port
 to the modem should take:

   100 bytes * 10 bits per byte / 38400 bps = 26 ms

 Second, modems try to group data into blocks. The modem will wait
 for about 50 ms to see if more data is coming that it could add to
 the block, before it starts to send the data it already has. Let's
 see what the total time is now:

   26 ms (100 bytes down serial port to modem)
   50 ms (modem's fixed waiting time)
   28 ms (transmission time over telephone line at 28.8 Kbps)
   26 ms (100 bytes up serial port at receiving end)

 Thus, the total time is 130 ms each way, or 260 ms for the round-
 trip. To make things worse, imagine that the 100 bytes in question
 are used by an interactive game being played by two players. If
 both players are connected to their respective Internet service
 providers by modem, then the total player-to-player round-trip
 delay is 520 ms, which is hopeless for any tightly-coupled
 interactivity, and this is reflected in the state of today's
 networked computer games. Can we do anything to improve this?


**Improving Latency** -- One thing to notice is that the 38.4 Kbps
 serial connection between the computer and the modem, which many
 people don't think of as being the bottleneck, turns out to be
 responsible for 52 ms of the delay. In fact, it's the single
 biggest contributor - almost twice as much as the actual
 communication over the telephone line. What can we do about this?
 If you can connect the modems at both ends at 115.2 Kbps instead
 of 38.4 Kbps, the serial port delay can be reduced to 9 ms at each
 end. Better still, if you can use an internal modem on a card
 instead of one connected through a serial port, the delay can be
 eliminated entirely, leaving a round-trip delay of only 156 ms.

 Having eliminated the serial port delay, the next biggest
 contributor to delay is the fixed 50 ms overhead built into the
 modem itself. Why is there a fixed 50 ms overhead? The reason is
 that modern modems offer lots of "features" - namely, compression
 and automatic error correction. To get effective compression and
 error correction, modems must work on blocks of data, which means
 characters are corralled in a buffer until the modem has received
 a block big enough to work on efficiently. While the characters
 accumulate in the modem's buffer, they're not being sent over the
 phone line. Imagine you're sending a small amount of data, 100
 bytes. That's not enough for the modem to work on effectively, so
 it would like a bigger block. After you have sent the 100 bytes to
 the modem, it waits to see if more characters arrive. After some
 time - about 50 ms - it decides no more characters are coming, so
 it compresses and ships what it has. That 50 ms the modem spends
 hoping for more data is unrecoverable, wasted time.

 Modems were originally designed with remote terminal access in
 mind. They were meant to take characters - typed by a user on one
 end and transmitted by a mainframe on the other - and group them
 into little blocks to send. The only indication that a user had
 finished typing (or that the mainframe had finished responding)
 was a pause in the data stream. No one told the modem when no more
 characters would be coming for a while, so it had to guess.

 This is no longer the case. Most people use modems to connect to
 the Internet, not old mainframes, and Internet traffic is made up
 of discrete packets, not a continuous stream of characters.

 There's a simple fix for this problem. We could make modems aware
 that they are sending Internet packets. When a modem sees the PPP
 (Point to Point Protocol) End-Of-Packet character (0x7E), it could
 realize that the packet is complete and immediately begin
 compressing and sending the block of data it has, without pausing
 for 50 ms. This simple fix would eliminate the 50 ms fixed
 overhead, and should allow us to achieve a 56 ms round-trip delay
 over a modem PPP connection - almost five times better than what
 typical modems achieve today.

 [Tune in next week as Stuart explains how bandwidth and latency
 interact, and how software can try to cope with the latency
 problem.]


$$

Non-profit, non-commercial publications may reprint articles if
full credit is given. Others please contact us. We don't guarantee
accuracy of articles. Caveat lector. Publication, product, and
company names may be registered trademarks of their companies.

This file is formatted as setext. For more information send email
to <[email protected]>. A file will be returned shortly.

For information on TidBITS: how to subscribe, where to find back
issues, and other useful stuff, send email to: <[email protected]>
Send comments and editorial submissions to: <[email protected]>
Issues available at: ftp://ftp.tidbits.com/pub/tidbits/issues/
And: http://www.tidbits.com/tb-issues/
To search back issues with WAIS, use this URL via a Web browser:
http://wais.sensei.com.au/macarc/tidbits/searchtidbits.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.floodgap.com. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.