[HN Gopher] BBSing at 300 Bits per Second ___________________________________________________________________ BBSing at 300 Bits per Second Author : zdw Score : 17 points Date : 2022-10-02 21:08 UTC (1 hours ago) (HTM) web link (jcs.org) (TXT) w3m dump (jcs.org) | metadat wrote: | What year was 300bps the state of the art? Around 1995-1996 I had | a 14.4k modem and it was pretty fast at the time. | reaperducer wrote: | _What year was 300bps the state of the art?_ | | Until about 1985. That's when the first 1200 baud consumer- | available modems like the Commodore 1670 started arriving. | | There were others available slightly earlier, but they were | commercial-grade and prohibitively expensive for most people. | loloquwowndueo wrote: | Wikipedia claims 1200bps was available in the 70s. | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modem I did start with a | 1200bps modem back in the 80s, even then it was considered | quite slow but was enough for email reading and basic bbs | tasks. It sucked for any kind of download though. | Firehawke wrote: | I was using 300 baud back in 1986-1987 or so, though 1200 was | definitely easily available by the late 80s and 2400 was | cheap by 1991. | daneel_w wrote: | It wasn't the state of the art in the early to mid 1980s, but | that's when they were still popular. The famous Supra Modem | 2400 arrived on the shelves in the late 1980s. I had a 14k4 | modem in 1994, and a 28k8 one in 1995. | | Add.: the 14k4 modem cost me an equivalent of about $350 in | 1994. | hsbauauvhabzb wrote: | I was about to ask how much they cost but you'd already | edited your post. | | I remember hitting 48.8/56k in ~1996 after I got a modem for | Christmas (aged 5). | | Now I'm on 1000/50mbit, or ~17.5 thousand times faster than | my first connection if my math is correct. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Don't know about state of the art, but in the early 80s, 300 | bps was the economical choice, relatively speaking, for home | users. 1200 bps were around but were a good deal less | affordable and in quite a bit of the country, less reliable due | to the general state of signal quality on the phone network at | the time. | aninteger wrote: | Consider yourself lucky. I had a 2400 bps modem in 1995, my | first year on the internet. The ISP recommended 9600 bps but | everything seemed ok for 14 year old me. IRC was fine and most | websites didn't have too many pictures. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Interesting that the terminal appears to have at least an 80 | character buffer, as it is able to print after an LF and while | performing a CR. | | My first modem was 300 baud and while it was painfully slow, text | interfaces of the era tended to be very efficient. File transfers | of high resolution images is where it tended to get very painful, | especially since watching the block count increase (if even that) | wasn't anywhere near as engaging as actually navigating through | menus and reading information. | kcplate wrote: | Reminds me a bit of a HP mainframe I was an operator on in the | mid 80s. We had essentially a paper/typewriter style terminal so | that it would record all input and output direct to continuous | paper that would be saved for auditing if needed. | | Type a command, read your book until you heard it print a | response, go read the response and do the next step. Repeat. | [deleted] | sf97ahgf wrote: | Thank goodness we moved on to broadband. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | There were some short lived quirky technologies at the end of | the dial up era, such as using multiple 56k modems bonded into | a single connection, the increase throughput. Since this | required two telephone lines on both ends, in addition to four | modems, only the most data hungry went to that degree of | effort. Most simply got broadband when it was offered. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-10-02 23:00 UTC)