XPost: alt.comp.os.windows-11   
   From: daniel47@somewhere.someplaceelse   
      
   On 10/09/2025 10:01 am, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   No, Lawrence, I'm not talking "fairly low-bandwidth communication",   
   Lawrence, nothing THAT FAST!! Try 50 or 75 Baud, late 70's/early 80's.   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
   o.K.   
   --   
   Daniel70   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)