|
|
| Author |
Message |
chelsea
|
|
Windows Telecommunications
| 
Nov 10 14:14 UTC 1993 |
I've been using ProComm Plus for ages now but just recently I've
gotten the bug to futz with a Windows version. Are Windows
telecomm programs still klunky and crash-prone?
|
| 23 responses total. |
kentn
|
|
response 1 of 23:
|
Nov 10 15:09 UTC 1993 |
Well, I wouldn't recommend Lan Workplace's Host Presenter (that's what
we have on the network at work, running under Windoze). Poor choice of
screen colors, you have to run a separate program to ftp, the manual
is terrible, etc. There must be better comm software around.
|
goose
|
|
response 2 of 23:
|
Nov 10 16:51 UTC 1993 |
I use PCPlus for Win all the time. I use it both with a local modem and
via ethernet to a LAN modem pool. I think it's very flexable, and
reccomend it to windows telecommuters. We've standardized on this
package at my place of employment.
|
danr
|
|
response 3 of 23:
|
Nov 10 17:32 UTC 1993 |
I bought Smartcom for Windows (less than $40 from PC Connection). It's
not a bad program, but it's still the 1.0 version and it's got a few
quirks. The one that aggravates me the most is not being able to send
different setup strings to different systems. This means that I have
to go in and manually change it when I connect to grex. The tech support
people say that you can do this with the script language, but I haven't
had the time to crack that yet.
The nice thing about Smartcom is that the comm driver is much nicer
than the driver that my dos program, telix, uses. I get better
throughput and fewer errors when downloading files with Smartcom.
|
chelsea
|
|
response 4 of 23:
|
Nov 20 16:01 UTC 1993 |
Has anyone had the opportunity to compare Smartcom v2.0, ProComm for
Windows, Microphone, and Crosstalk? I'd think not but thought I'd
ask anyhow. ;-)
Maybe more likely, does anyone know of a recent computer magazine
article discussing the currently available Windows comm programs?
|
tsty
|
|
response 5 of 23:
|
Nov 22 09:35 UTC 1993 |
Hilgraeve's HyperACCESS for Windows is a right, sharp package. Applicable
from novice through and including developers. Their email is both
hilgraeve@mcimail.com and 75226.2411@compuserve.com . And they have
a bbs in Monroe, MI but I don't have the phone number handy ...
|
tsty
|
|
response 6 of 23:
|
Dec 10 05:29 UTC 1993 |
any action here?
|
chelsea
|
|
response 7 of 23:
|
Dec 10 14:04 UTC 1993 |
Well, the more I consider this the more I feel my machine may
not be up to a Windows comm program. I'm using a 386sx 20
with 4 megs of memory. Over the past year I've upgraded
a number of programs to the Windows versions and there is a
noticeable slowdown. Now, for Word for Windows it's worth it
but for communications I'm not so sure.
So Santa has been informed to move this choice down on the list
a notch or two.
|
aa8ij
|
|
response 8 of 23:
|
Dec 10 22:43 UTC 1993 |
Maybe Santa would like to install windows on HIS PC. ;)
but then again, I have heard that Santa uses a Mac Quadra ;)
|
srw
|
|
response 9 of 23:
|
Dec 11 00:20 UTC 1993 |
He doesn't run Unix, because the daemons don't get along with the elves.
|
carl
|
|
response 10 of 23:
|
Feb 6 19:44 UTC 1994 |
I have Smartcom for Windows too. Version 1.0A.
I'd be surprized if it couldn't keep up with a 2400 baud modem on your
machine, Mary. I saw an article (could dig it up if you want) about
various communication programs for Windows. It had 2 or 3 that it
praised highly in the $150-200 range. It said that Smartcom was a good
deal for a person with a Hayse compatible modem that didn't mind taking
some time to set it up.
Smartcom has many features that I don't use simply because I haven't
learned them or because they aren't very intuitive. One example is
the icons. It has commands for *many* functions, but it would take
me a while to figure out how to access them and select which ones to
keep in my various files.
I keep a file for each system I log onto, and keep an autoexec file
for each. I start with a blank file, add the phone number and a few
scripts (from other files), click SCOPE and Learn, dial, log in, click
that I'm done (learning the script) and save it as autoexec.
It would be nice if this were more intuitive, but for $100-150, I can
live with it. And it's *great* having it in Windows so I can cut and
paste between programs!
|
chelsea
|
|
response 11 of 23:
|
Feb 7 14:31 UTC 1994 |
Thanks for the info, Carl.
|
kaplan
|
|
response 12 of 23:
|
Feb 26 06:23 UTC 1994 |
I've been using procomm (the last sharwaare version, 2.4.2, copywrite
1986) for a long time and my biggest complaint with it is that I'd like to
be able to copy text from the screen and paste it back out the modem. I
played around with procomm plus for windows. I was displeased. I
couldn't find a way to convert my old procomm.dir directory. Most of the
keys didn't work as I expected. The num lock was confused. The print
screen key didn't work. And I couldn't seem to use the mouse to mark text
for copying.
Being able to stay in windows is fine, and I'm sure zmodem would be handy
if I had downloads to do, but I'm not going to be shelling out real money
for procomm plus for windows any time soon.
Do any of you remember your transition from procomm to procomm plus?
|
davel
|
|
response 13 of 23:
|
Feb 26 13:19 UTC 1994 |
I went to PC+ at work. It went fairly smoothly, & I still use it. The
actual emulation has some problems (with wrapping in particular); I've
noticed this especially in emulating DG terminals, though, which is unlikely
to be a problem for most people. They did move some of the keys around
(but give fairly good help menu). This was PC+ for DOS. As far as I can
tell, the mouse (which I've only recently gotten) translates to arrow keys
with the click doing an Enter (?), & I wish I could find a way to just turn
it off; every time I jostle the thing my terminal goes berserk. But for
what I need to do it's fine, & we've *got* it.
|
scg
|
|
response 14 of 23:
|
Feb 26 19:28 UTC 1994 |
Actually, the click activates the menus.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 15 of 23:
|
Feb 27 13:04 UTC 1994 |
I like ZTerm 0.9. Cut & paste, giant scroll back buffer, limited but
useful scripting, all kinds of download options. Too bad it's Mac.
|
remmers
|
|
response 16 of 23:
|
Feb 27 13:46 UTC 1994 |
Maybe it'll come out in a windows version eventually. Didn't Microphone
start out as a Mac product?
|
bad
|
|
response 17 of 23:
|
Feb 27 22:07 UTC 1994 |
re #12:
I use PC/WIN and I'm quite happy with it - used Procomm and then
Procomm Plus in DOS. You must not have looked at the manual or tried the help
when you tried PC/WIN. To select text, you have to go into "scrollback
mode" (alt-p). Yeah, it's a different mode. To print the screen (since
Windows hijacks the printscreen key), is alt-l, or choose screen to >
printer, under 'edit' on the top-line menus.
There's a script included to convert dialing directories, which
worked fine for me.
As to the keys not working as you expected, I think you'd find that
pretty much the case with anything new. Most of the PCPlus key combinations
don't have direct equivalents. There are a number of "standard" Windows
combos that they also didn't stick with. I think the addition of so many
commands left them short some letters. :\
|
remmers
|
|
response 18 of 23:
|
Jun 30 15:32 UTC 1994 |
News flash: We have a kid going off to college in the fall. He'll
be taking his DOS/Windows machine with him, is used to working with
Windows, and we want him to stay in touch by email (I'm not holding
my breath... :-), so we picked up a copy of ProComm for Windows for
him to use.
I haven't given the product an in-depth look yet, but so far I'm
reasonably well impressed. Excellent on-line help, apparently
accurate VT220 emulation, it doesn't seem slow, I can set the
terminal screen to any number of lines I want up to 50, and although
some of the defaults aren't what I prefer, it seems pretty easy to
change them. There are a lot of features I haven't tried out yet,
though. I'll report more when I know more.
|
scg
|
|
response 19 of 23:
|
Jun 30 15:37 UTC 1994 |
You actually think you're going to get Carlos to use e-mail?
|
remmers
|
|
response 20 of 23:
|
Jun 30 20:43 UTC 1994 |
(I said I'm not holding my breath, but hope springs eternal...)
I've come across a couple of terminal emulation oddities. In VT220
emulation, the arrow keys don't quite do the right thing. And
control-<SPACE> and control-"/" don't do what I'm used to.
|
davel
|
|
response 21 of 23:
|
Jul 1 18:43 UTC 1994 |
I'm not familiar with the windows version. The DOS version I've used is
really nice in many ways (it's what I regularly use), but its emulations
have some problems here and there. Most relate to lines that wrap, in
connection with moving around with arrow keys or whatever. (On PC-plus's
DG emulation, which is not of interest to too many people, there are also
some quirks about how some things like bright/dim text is shown, etc.)
|
scg
|
|
response 22 of 23:
|
Jul 1 21:26 UTC 1994 |
PCPlus for DOS also changes colors rather than underlining.
|
remmers
|
|
response 23 of 23:
|
Jul 3 17:12 UTC 1994 |
The Windows version does VT??? emulation better than the DOS version
in several respects. It does true underlining and boldfacing, as well
as double-height characters. The DOS version is hampered by the
restriction of working within text mode.
|