Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!apple!voder!pyramid!csg From: csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: New Modems, Telebit Fails under impairments in PC Magazine tests Message-ID: <138332@pyramid.pyramid.com> Date: 20 Dec 90 03:27:58 GMT References: <1990Nov23.185029.2663@nstar <5791@holston.UUCP> <405@beagle.UUCP> Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA Lines: 27 One thing no one has mentioned so far was PC Magazine's "Editor's Choice" modem, the MultiTech V.32. I think this choice says more about the magazine than their drubbing of the Telebit. I purchased a pair of these, based on MultiTech's impeccable reputation with their 224E V.22bis MNP5 modems. I can say without hesitation that the Multi- Tech V.32 modem is the worst piece of garbage I've ever seen turned out as a finished product by an American modem manufacturer. Its performance over *any* line condition was poor. Within the same CO over nearly flawless lines, the MultiTech simply would not hold a connection for more than 30 minutes or so. Over long distance it was almost totally unusable. I wouldn't dream of trying over international lines. Needless to say, my ancient Telenet TrailBlazer+ runs PEP almost perfectly over all these same connections; never mind a T2500. (I haven't tried the T2500 enough in V.32 to make a fair comparison. I plan to, soon.) If that wasn't bad enough, there were all the firmware bugs in the MultiTech. Without warning, the modem would lose all of its saved configuration. Or it would go catatonic, and need a power cycle to come back. Or it would set all the S registers to 255, or all to 0. Or it would flow control off, and never turn it back on. (Power cycle, again.) They're on the shelf now, collecting dust. No one is willing to use them any more.