Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!cbmvax!grr From: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Anybody Read PC Digest's Modem Review? (retry) Message-ID: <7460@cbmvax.UUCP> Date: 27 Jul 89 23:50:09 GMT References: <89Jul26.231152edt.57880@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> Reply-To: grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA Lines: 55 In article <89Jul26.231152edt.57880@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> CS117341@YUSol.bitnet (Norman) writes: > > In last month's PC Digest Ratings Report (vol 3 #6), they > reviewed 10 High-Speed modems... We could get in another extended discussion about the sames issues as the last extended discussions... The real questions are: 1) Are the things they are testing relevant to your application. 2) Are the test procedures really reflective of real world conditions. 3) Which modems give you the most utility/connectivity. 4) Which modems give you the highers performance / dollar. 5) Which modems address any special concern for your applications. Conditions in the modem market are changing. Last year, the Telebit was the clear leader in the unix/uucp area. This year the others are much more competitive. In the PC/BBS world MNP and mega-baud rates have more attraction and cause fewer problems than in the Unix world. Transmitting a spread sheet thats 75% spaces isn't the same as a compressed news batch. V.32 is becoming more important (and cheaper). Everybody should have at least one modem that talks V.32 for talking to the outside universe, which translates into all modems should do V.32 in addition to their proprietary techniques, as long as cost doesn't make them non-competitive. Telebit has in some ways failed to really keep up with the market in ways that would make them more competitve, resting on their technology and initial penetration into niche markets. Support for USR modes would allow interoperation into the BBS area and still seems to be a reaonsable compromise for interactive use. V.32 was late in coming and expensive. SLIP support is illusory, giving away a growing niche to the V.32 solutions. The 38.4 K-baud frenzy is mostly specsmanship and false advertising, but there's no (obvious) reason why at TB can't talk 38.4K too. The 5.00 ROM's were very slow in coming, while the auto-baud and modem wedging bugs made initial installation harder then it should have been and created bad press. Lack of clear and explicit documentation for the spoofing modes creates doubt and uncertainty. The incompatibility between the telebit answering sequences and smart-modem "voice detect" and the "S92=1" kludge turned things that should have worked simply and by default into operational hassles. BTW, I am a "satisfied" Telebit customer, and we've now bought around 50 Telebits, including TB+, T1000, rackmounts and a couple T2500's. I just think they could be doing a better job and may suffer for it. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)