RE: throughput

Subject: RE: throughput
From: "Combs, Richard" <richard -dot- combs -at- Polycom -dot- com>
To: Daniel Feiglin <daniel_f -at- radwin -dot- com>, "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 08:49:31 -0800

Daniel Feiglin wrote:

> That's correct, but hardly user friendly. T'put is absolutely ghastly - but
> semantically clear in my context.
> But joking aside, what about "Thr.put", "Thr put" or "Th put"? We also use
> things like "Tx Power", "Rx Power" or just Tx and Rx in the same context.

Know your audience. But I find it hard to believe that your audience would have trouble understanding kbps, Mbps, or whatever throughput measure applies. And I can't imagine that "Th put" or some such nonsense would be clearer to anyone than the widely accepted abbreviation for the actual throughput measure.

Richard G. Combs
Senior Technical Writer
Polycom, Inc.
richardDOTcombs AT polycomDOTcom
rgcombs AT gmailDOTcom


Create and publish documentation through multiple channels with Doc-To-Help.
Choose your authoring formats and get any output you may need. Try
Doc-To-Help, now with MS SharePoint integration, free for 30-days.

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:

Re: throughput: From: Bill Swallow
RE: throughput: From: Daniel Feiglin

Previous by Author: RE: Data modeling freeware recommendations
Next by Author: Re: For V/s Of
Previous by Thread: Re: throughput
Next by Thread: Re: throughput

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads