Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!linac!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!aurs01!roberson From: roberson@aurs01.UUCP (Charles "Chip" Roberson) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: New Modems Message-ID: <59360@aurs01.UUCP> Date: 28 Nov 90 22:33:36 GMT References: <1990Nov21.221114.11850@unixland.uucp> <9842@discus.technion.ac.il> <1990Nov26.062122.24546@sbcs.sunysb.edu> Sender: news@aurs01.UUCP Reply-To: roberson@aurw31.UUCP (Charles "Chip" Roberson) Organization: Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh NC Lines: 26 In article <1990Nov26.062122.24546@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: > >The PC Mag test was measuring the ability to hold the line >when using V.32/V.42/V.42bis and not PEP. > >This makes all of the difference. > >- JEFF I picked up the PC Mag article because I'm considering the purchase of a high speed modem. I was leaning towards the T2500 since I definitely want to support UUCP. However, I also want to have as much compatibility and throughput as possible with the rest of the bunch. The PC Mag article was good at clarifying the standards but it muddied the waters for me on which modem I want to purchase. In fact, I'm beginning to think there is no single modem that fits my needs. Could someone the significance of the T2500 not being able to hold the line when using V.32/V.42/V.42bis? Thanks, -chip * Work: 2912 Wake Forest Road, Raleigh, NC 27609 (919) 850-5011 * (...!mcnc!aurgate!roberson) || (roberson%aurgate@mcnc.org) || * (71500.2056@CompuServe.com) || (Chip.Roberson@f112.n151.z1.fidonet.org) #include