Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!YUSol.bitnet!CS117341 From: CS117341@YUSol.bitnet (Norman) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Anybody Read PC Digest's Modem Review? (retry) Message-ID: <89Jul26.231152edt.57880@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Date: 26 Jul 89 19:47:00 GMT Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 45 I forgot to include my address in my last message... I'm reposting the whole message again. Apologies... Hello all, In last month's PC Digest Ratings Report (vol 3 #6), they reviewed 10 High-Speed modems. Among them, are the Microcom QX/V.32c, USR Courrier HST Dual Standard, Hayes V-series 9600, and Telebit Trailblazer Plus. Overall, the Microcom rated 8.5/10, with the USR trailing with a 7.8. Rather surprisingly, the Trailblazer + rated a 5.4 (it scored 8th, tying with the Ventel Pathfinder). The Microcom and USR modem both offer a 38.4K data rate between the system and computer, which would help to explain their high performance in comparison to the other modems. Interestingly, the Trailblazer+ doesn't seem to do well in comparison to the MNP 5 modems. In fact, it was generally one of the slower modems in the tests. Recently, I've recommended the purchase of two Trailblazer T2500 modems for high-speed communications, and am now faced with responding to the conclusions of PC Digest. Now, I do realize that the TB+ and T2500 are different modems; the T2500 having v.32 and MNP 5. However, I am at a loss to explain the Trailblazer's rather sluggish performance in PEP mode. Would anyone have any clues as to why the Trailblazer didn't do well in this report? Please respond directly, and I'll summarize to all who request it. Norman (most of these work) cs117341@yusol.Bitnet cs117341@sol.YorkU.CA cs117341%yusol@mivma.mit.edu cs117341%yusol@cunyvm.cuny.edu cs117341%yusol@forsythe.stanford.edu [...]!psuvax1!yusol.bitnet!cs117341 [...]!utzoo!yunexus!yusol!cs117341 (?) [...]!utzoo!nexus.yorku.ca!yusol!cs117341(?)