Re: [hylafax-users] HylaFAX performance vs regular fax machine.

[Lee Howard <faxguy@deanox.com>]

At 08:25 PM 9/5/01 -0400, Joe Matuscak wrote:

>Sep 05 17:06:39.16: [  959]: TRAINING succeeded
>Sep 05 17:06:39.16: [  959]: <-- [11:AT+FTM=146\r]
>Sep 05 17:06:39.20: [  959]: --> [7:CONNECT]
>Sep 05 17:06:39.20: [  959]: SEND begin page
....
>Sep 05 17:06:59.30: [  959]: SENT 38794 bytes of data
>Sep 05 17:06:59.30: [  959]: <-- data [1024]
>Sep 05 17:06:59.30: [  959]: <-- data [1024]
>Sep 05 17:07:01.07: [  959]: <-- data [1024]
>Sep 05 17:07:01.07: [  959]: <-- data [636]
>Sep 05 17:07:01.07: [  959]: SENT 3708 bytes of data
>Sep 05 17:07:01.07: [  959]: SEND 2D RTC
>Sep 05 17:07:01.07: [  959]: <-- data [30]
>Sep 05 17:07:01.07: [  959]: <-- data [2]
>Sep 05 17:07:01.07: [  959]: SEND end page
>Sep 05 17:07:03.19: [  959]: --> [2:OK]

38794 bytes in 20.10 seconds.  That's 15 Kbps, so it's right on par with
what it should be doing.  Looking further at the log, you don't seem to be
consuming a significantly large amount of time during training or between
pages, either...

So... are you *sure* that you're sending the exact same image on HylaFAX as
you are with the fax machine?  Less black on the page means less data which
means less total time to fax.

Test a blank white page on both systems.  Then, if you dare, test a
completely black page on both.  Then compare.  The best way to be fair
about this is to produce the image on the HylaFAX system and then print it
out for your manual fax.

Lee.



____________________ HylaFAX(tm) Users Mailing List _______________________
 To unsub: mail -s unsubscribe hylafax-users-request@hylafax.org < /dev/null