"charlesb" wrote

The big drawback with AGW packet engine is the price tag. Why pay extra to
use an imperfect knock-off of higher quality, better performing software
(FlexNet) that you can get for free?

AGW's price tag is on the order of a six-pack of beer. That's hardly a drawback.
The old free AGW is all anyone needs for 9600 and less speeds. I'm assuming
you're talking about the IP part, and not the new version he's selling.

AGW gets a lot of LandLine-Lid types to use his software by making it easy
to set up a gateway with AGW...

I used AGW to do APRS with a soundcard, and never used the IP part of it.
The IP part isn't very useful past Windows 95, and who runs that anymore? The
non-IP part was fun to program against.

Remember that the question about throughput was put forward by someone who
identified themself as a beginner. He didn't mention anything about wanting
to re-write the code. Currently there are only a two packages that offer
optimised performance coupled with easy, simple setup that would fill that
persons' stated requirements. There's FlexNet, and it's expensive knock-off
AGW... Naturally, I recommended FlexNet to my fellow ham.

The obvious other question, is what data do you have that needs throughput?

When everyone realized that all they were getting on the BBS was out of band
mods and people on soap boxes complaining about whatever they were
complaining about, then it all caved-in on itself, as a worthless endeavor.

Until we hear what the data is, our definition of good throughput may be morse
code at 5 WPM, or it may be a WiFi at 50 Mbps.