🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 17:41:39 -0400, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca>
wrote:

>On 02/08/2013 6:58 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 07:39:32 +0900, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> writes:
>>>> Be thankful you weren't going online earlier in the 2400 days (or
>>>> earlier.)  56K was SCREAMINGLY fast compared to that.
>>>
>>> ... and compared to 300 baud, 2400 was _heaven_...
>>>
>>> [I've played rogue over a 300 baud dialup ... it was ... well.]
>>>
>>> -miles
>>
>> Ah the joys of 300 baud.  The data rate could not keep pace with my
>> typing at times (literally).
>
>Are you sure about that, Rin? 110 baud was 10 characters per second, or 
>100 "words" per minute ("word" meaning 5 characters and a space in the 
>usual typing speed tests). 300 baud would be around 300 wpm, an inhuman 
>typing rate.

Yes I'm sure, but maybe I should clarify.

In those days, when we were typing over "terminal software", it was
normally sending the data one character at a time over the wire. These
days, we are typing into some client software (for example text input
on a web page, or a window object in client software like a
newsreader) and the text is not hit until we hit the submit button
which sends lots of data all at once, usually via HTTP PUT/POST or
GET. 

So if you can imagine a network round trip occuring with each
character typed (well sort of, depending on circumstances), you can
imagine how the max theoretical bandwidth is not even getting close to
being utilized.

Anyone who used 300 baud modems and typed reasonably fast knows what I
mean.  You would sit there and transfer the thought from brain to
fingertips then sit back and watch the screen catch up with your
typing (each backspace to correct typos would get replayed as if
watching a slow motion video).  If you were a hunt-n-peck or otherwise
slow typist, it might never bother you.

Then of course there was the issue that 300 baud was slower than many
folks' normal reading speed.