Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!csus.edu!beach.csulb.edu!sichermn
From: sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Intel 9600ex
Message-ID: <1991Feb15.084159.3393@beach.csulb.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 91 08:41:59 GMT
References: <4028@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <3186@unocss.unomaha.edu>
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Lines: 30

In article <3186@unocss.unomaha.edu> fg041@unocss.UUCP (Jack Winslade) writes:
>In article <4028@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> sob@tmc.edu (Stan Barber) writes:
>>I just got a couple of these and am quite impressed with them.
>>

 [ comments & complaints deleted ]

>
>Right now I could care less about v.32bis for the thing.  I just want it to
>operate properly with the standard modems that have been around for the past
>several years.  (And no, I don't consider telling the affected users to get
>newer modems an appropriate solution.)
>
>It's too bad that when a product such as the 9600ex came out, it was so
>thoroughly tested against the Robotics and Telebit macho modems, when it
>is so glaringly obvious that they failed to verify the performance with
>the older ones.  I could possibly see one or two models having difficulty,
>but this is with several types of modems from several different vendors.
> 

    I can't help but think that this is reflective of the fact that the
manufacturers and interested parties spend incredible amount of time and
effort to develop and standardize the modulation, correction, and other
low level characteristics of modems and tend to neglect and otherwise
give short shrift to many of the higher level functions as far as their
standardization goes - leading to problems such as this. Instead of
working from and towards specifications, it's mostly chaos trying to
match everybody else on case-by-case bases.

Jeff Sicherman