Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!umigw!mthvax!wb8foz
From: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher,,255RTFM,255rtfm)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: New Modems, Telebit Fails under impairments in PC Magazine tests
Message-ID: <1990Nov30.020108.7795@mthvax.cs.miami.edu>
Date: 30 Nov 90 02:01:08 GMT
References: <1715@chinacat.Unicom.COM> <1990Nov19.191023.11581@nstar> 	<1990Nov21.221114.11850@unixland.uucp> 	<1990Nov23.185029.2663@nstar.rn.com> 	<1990Nov26.010656.20883@virtech.uucp> 	<1990Nov26.024835.13024@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> 	<1990Nov26.062122.24546@sbcs.sunysb.
Reply-To: wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher)
Distribution: na
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews Abusers
Lines: 69

Bob Sutterfield and others talked about the PC mag tests...


>"The unit gave us a few headaches while we were trying to set up for
>V.32/V.42/V.42bis testing. Because the default configuration tries to
>connect with another Telebit modem using PEP first, we needed several
>phone calls to technical support to get the modem configured for our
>performance tests... 

>Yes, be aware of that fact. Question both the modem and the tests.

> Well, I wonder If they plugged it in right, or did thay plug it in
> at all? ;-)
> 
>You might be getting close!

>The problems described in the article all appear to be addressed by
>the modem's user documents. When using a modem that's nearly
>Turing-complete, it helps to RTFM. 

>And the shame of it is, PCMag went to print before their testing
>problems were resolved (if they ever were), and that article has by
>now been photocopied and shoved into folders all over the world, to be
>treated as an authoritative reference manual to choosing high-speed
>modems. I don't know who fared worst from that article: Telebit, or
>companies like Intel whose modems didn't even make it into the review.


I've chopped a lot out, but it's still is long, but......

First of all, a magazine is typically NOT bribeable. They serve their
customers to the best of their ability. BUT, you the reader, are NOT
the customer. You are the PRODUCT being peddled to the customer -- the
advertisers. And the term is not "BRIBE" anyhow, rather it is
"editorial support."

I have some second hand experience with a review by a magazine such as
Bite, PeeSea Magazine, Unpopular Computing, etc. I helped betatest a
product that depended on the {internal} hardware working properly when
pushed. Not overworked, just asked to do what it was supposed to. In a
world populated with thousands of clones of all levels of quality, this
can be a problem. So the people who put together the product put an
AUTOMATIC testing procedure into the code. When you installed it, it
tested the hardware, and then set the best performance it could.

So, out came the review. XYZ mag said it came in 4th, I think, because
its performance was so slow. Everyone at the company TRIED to duplicate
the results, and could not. Finally they figured out that the tester
never RTFMed, and NEVER INSTALLED THE PRODUCT. They just copied it
over, plugged things in and away they went.

Of course, the product was well-designed, and was set to start at the
slowest speed, a good worst_case_design idea. But since XYZ never
bothered to install it, they ran the test at the slowest speed.

I know that the company talked to XYZ to try to get this error
corrected, but I guess that XYZ would never want to admit they totally
FUBARed the review, because I sure never saw a retraction article.

Moral: Believe that magazine with no ads it.... 

{NO, not that one! I mean the one with the fold-in and Alfred E. Newman.}


-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu 
& no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM
Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335
is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335