4 ms·
Absolutely. But the natural, two-ways, un-echoed flow of conversation, just as if you were talking to someone in the room - we have lost that, and it's a major
by interfixus 9y ago
Absolutely. But the natural, two-ways, un-echoed flow of conversation, just as if you were talking to someone in the room - we have lost that, and it's a major loss.
- vhold 9y agoAgreed, heck, I still lament low latency dial-up shell access. Even at 9600 baud it was still more responsive and felt like using a computer in the same room. Chatting with somebody like that, in talk/ytalk/etc, where you could see their every keystroke was a totally different experience because you could even get a vague sense of their thinking process through their pauses and edits.
- dsr_ 9y agoI was using a 9600 baud connection about an hour ago. It sucks rocks. You can see the ascii-menu updating. Everything flickers. (Serial console access to a server, if you really care.) If you run ytalk on a modern machine, it doesn't flicker, but you can still get every keystroke, because that's the protocol.
- BenjiWiebe 9y agoI have a server with ntalk for a few friends and it is my favorite method of non face-to-face communication.
- jackhack 9y agoFor me it's the slurring compression artifacts as much as the lag that makes cell phone conversations, web meetings, etc. inferior. Local digital cell phone calls mimic the old cross-country long distance analog calls of yesterday in terms of delay. w.r.t broadcast video, the eye/mind can still pick out an image from a static-filled snowy image, but digital artifacts from low/poor signal result in freeze-frames and garbled mess. Summary: Digital. When it's good, it's very good. But when it's bad, it's awful.
- lostlogin 9y agoThis is it exactly. Calls though the landline failed rather more gracefully.