Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bu.edu!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!shelby!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!kanefsky
From: kanefsky@cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: New Modems, Telebit Fails under impairments in PC Magazine tests
Message-ID: <1990Dec24.161034.8507@cs.umn.edu>
Date: 24 Dec 90 16:10:34 GMT
References: <1990Nov23.185029.2663@nstar <5791@holston.UUCP> <405@beagle.UUCP> <138332@pyramid.pyramid.com> <2477.2771e71f@verifone.com>
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept.
Lines: 39

In article <2477.2771e71f@verifone.com> jimmy_t@verifone.com writes:
>In article <138332@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>
>> 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.
>  ...
>> Over long distance it was almost totally unusable. I wouldn't dream of trying
>> over international lines.
>> 
>
>We also bought some MultiTech V.32 modems after having very good experiences
>with their 2400/MNP modems.  We did try them on international lines
>and local lines -- Our experiences mirrored yours i.e. the modems
>were very close to unusable.
>
>Perhaps PC Mag got MultiTech modems with a newer design or firmware?   In
>buying Multitech modems over a 2 year period we found that almost everytime we
>received a new Multi-Tech 2400 bps modem it came with a newer version of
>firmware or was a totally new design.

I have a Farallon Remote/V.32 modem which matches the description of the
PC Mag article exactly (i.e. power switch is in same inconvenient location,
status light are in exactly the same order and have exactly the same
behavior, same number of DIP switches, etc. etc.)  I even saw a chip labeled 
MultiTech when I opened the case up. I haven't had a single problem with
this modem.  It was pretty much plug-n-play.  I've connected to nearly
every possible legal combination of {2400, 9600} {no error correction, MNP 4, 
LAPM} and {no compression, MNP 5, V.42bis}.  It's amazing that the thing
even works with my Mac 512E, which doesn't support hardware handshaking,
yet I can easily get throughputs well over 2000 cps in both directions,
and I'm pretty sure I'm still limited by my Mac/serial port/telecom program
combination and not the modem itself.  I've never made international calls,
but all my local and domestic long distance calls have worked fine, and I've 
almost never failed-to-make or lost a connection. 

-- 
Steve Kanefsky             
kanefsky@cs.umn.edu