Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!shadooby!sharkey!cfctech!teemc!ka3ovk!ki4pv!tanner
From: tanner@ki4pv.uucp (Dr. T. Andrews)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Microcom Modems.....Are they any good?
Summary: pointing, laughing, & jeering
Message-ID: <7134@ki4pv.uucp>
Date: 5 Dec 89 12:19:03 GMT
References: <[25765e3f:99.1]comp.dcom.modems;1@nstar.UUCP> <1989Dec4.054323.9528@larouch.uucp>
Followup-To: alt.maroney
Organization: CompuData Inc., DeLand
Lines: 14
X-planation: it's pretty dumb to buy a modem to cat /etc/hosts

In article <1989Dec4.054323.9528@larouch.uucp>, jparnas@larouch.UUCP (Jacob Parnas) writes:
) ... we use the Microcom's ... have the best compression currently
) around ... hook them up ... at 38400 baud.  I've seen up to 33000
) baud true throughput cating a file like /etc/hosts. You won't get
) that from a T2500.
Quite true.  From this, I believe that we can judge what the best modem
is when we wish to call up and cat /etc/hosts.

On the other hand, if we are pushing around large amounts of compressed
data (a newsfeed is a convenient example) where the modem's compression
is not effective, then you should consider a modem whose underlying
transport technology is better suited to moving bits.
-- 
...!{bikini.cis.ufl.edu allegra attctc bpa uunet!cdin-1}!ki4pv!tanner