Ron says:

>What I have found after looking at both products is that Minisoft spends a
>lot of time processing a screen paint.  This is because you can define, at
>the PC level, how your screen output should look.  Now granted Reflection
>can be slow at times as well, but only at startup and for networking
>reasons.
>
>For my money, I would rather have my HP programs choose how data is tobe
>painted on screen; rather than, have the emulator do that.
>
>The image is that the HP is slow, and it's really Minisoft figuring out
>what color to paint "Hey stupid, your out of paper."  :)

To which I say, performance (as it pertains to screen paints) is in the 
eye of the beholder.  Personally, I have not noticed any such degradation 
during screen paints, and I use a lot of VPlus apps and Qedit in full-
screen mode.  I guess we could use some hard data on this subject.

But Chris Bartram wrote:

>I can't speak for Ron, but having done some side-by-side comparisons; the
>terminal emulation doesn't seem notably slower/faster in either -
especially
>since the latest versions of R1 have slowed down considerably (especially
when
>you enable hot-spots in 6.0 of R1) but I can state that if you do alot of
>downloading, R1 has MS92 beat badly... file transfers I've done over VT
>sessions consistently show R1's file transfer at 4-6 *times* faster than
MS92s
>(using both products latest host programs).
>
>While I'd recommend MS92 on a price/performance basis for terminal
emulation,
>if you have to do alot of file transfers, you NEED R1.

Well, I would say that if you do a lot of downloads, what you really need 
is either FTP or Samba.  But at least download speed is pretty objective, 
and I have to admit, we don't do a lot of downloads.

Jim Phillips                            Manager of Information Systems
E-Mail: [log in to unmask]      Therm-O-Link, Inc.
Phone: (330) 527-2124                   P. O. Box 285
  Fax: (330) 527-2123                   Garrettsville, Ohio  44231