Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)

[Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>]

 I leave just normal STAC on here, but then again I have never
had to chance to truley test the difference between any of the
given options, Is there going to be an advantage to using MS-STAC 
with the release of Windows 98? I've heard that the tcp code and
compression is "supposed to be better", I guess we will have to see
because in my opinion MS TCP stack is horrible.

Jason Nealis
Director Internet Operations
Network Access
Erols Internet


On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Jeff A Culverhouse wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, MegaZone wrote:
> 
> > >>1) Stac	(Ascend native version)
> > >>2) Stac-9	(Stac LZS Option 3)
> > >>3) MS-Stac	(Stac LZS Option 4)
> 
> So, what is the best option to use?  Weren't there performance problems
> using MS-Stac?  Since most of our users are Win 95, is MS-Stac the best
> choice?  What does everyone use??
> 
> Jeff Culverhouse
> 
> ++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
> To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
> To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>
> 

++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

---

References:

• Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)
• From: Jeff A Culverhouse <jafoc@rev.net>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)
• Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) 2 minute timeout
• Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)
• Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) STAC Compression? (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread