XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11   
   From: ldo@nz.invalid   
      
   On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 21:36:19 +1000, Daniel70 wrote:   
      
   > On 9/09/2025 9:14 pm, Carlos E.R. wrote:   
   >>   
   >> Hum. Maybe not. I did not study TCP in that detail, but older   
   >> protocols would send a number of blocks, say 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and start   
   >> receiving the ACKs after number 3. The receiver says OK to number 1,   
   >> fail number 2, Ok number 3... so after a while, out of sequence, the   
   >> sender repeats number 2, just after sending number 6.   
   >>   
   > During my Military Service, I worked at The Australian Army's Primary   
   > H.F. Transmitter site. Most of our signals were multi-channel TTY over   
   > an A.F. channel. Just kept sending. If there was a corruption, that'd   
   > get resent later, if needed.   
      
   You’re talking fairly low-bandwidth communication, where the end-to-end   
   latency is only a few symbols at most.   
      
   With typical Internet connection speeds, end-to-end latencies can add up   
   to dozens, hundreds of data packets. So if you don’t use a windowing   
   protocol, you end up with very low channel bandwidth usage efficiency.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)