Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!pyramid!lstowell From: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: CODEX V.32bis Modems: Experiences? Keywords: codex v32bis v.32bis Message-ID: <146486@pyramid.pyramid.com> Date: 27 Feb 91 20:59:16 GMT Sender: daemon@pyramid.pyramid.com Reply-To: lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) Organization: Pyramid Technology Corp., Mountain View, CA Lines: 91 In article <1939@public.BTR.COM> thad@public.BTR.COM (Thaddeus P. Floryan) writes: < slander of IMHO the best international class V.32 available.....blaming the modem vendor, not the operator> > >To be best of my knowledge, that one site in Palo Alto is the only one in MY >"universe" with CODEX modems, hence my original statements. The original >poster wanted feedback, so I related my experience interfacing with CODEX. > So you slander the modem, not the obviously incompatible configuration between your site and that specific site? >And as I replied to others in email, that same site has been troublesome for >over a decade, beginning with their mis-configuration of Racal-Vadic 3467 >Triple Modems when 1200 baud was de rigeur. I fought tooth-and-nail with >them for over 6 months during 1979 before they said "Oh, you're right, Thad, >sorry, we'll fix it in a jiffy," and they did. This statement makes me wonder even more why you slander the modem instead of the site. > >Are you asserting that CODEX is V.32 compliant and that Telebit and Digicom >are NOT compliant? > I am certainly asserting that the 2264 and the Phillips/TRT V.32's are just about the MOST compliant V.32's available. >With all due respect and in fairness to that troublesome site, they DID admit >earlier CODEX V.32 modems had severe problems with V.32 multi-mode handshaking; >they were also informed by CODEX that ALL problems are fixed with the new 2264 >MNP 5 modems. > You can have them check to see if their Codexi are at the proper rev level by having them check the Software Part Numbers under the "AUX" menus. These are two sets of numbers, they must press the "bullseye" button to get the second....the final 2 digits of the SECOND set of numbers should be "51" (Rev code 5.1) or higher..... >Sigh, such appears to NOT be the case in light of my continuing problems ONLY >with them and their CODEX modems. I'm not going to embarrass "them" publicly, >so don't ask. My only quarrel is with the statement "and their Codex modems". If you are having a problem with "them" that is different.,... I don't know what geographic area you are in or I would offer the number of (Bay area) Codex sales office. I can't imagine why you would prefer to "embarass" Codex rather than the real culprit...doesn't seem fair. If you know exactly how your modems are set up on your end, you should be able to figure out how the Codex or other modem on the other end will have to be configured to match this... just generic "settings for Telebit to Codex" may or may not work in your specific application...but with your experience I would presume you already know this. I would give you Codex's number for Dial Products, but they are a typical large company with the typical large "when in doubt transfer the call" means of dealing with questions...and all they would do is refer you to the local sales office anyway.... In the event you are not familiar with the Codex 2264, it is easily programmed from the front panel....you can even save the old settings for safety while doing so.... You could use AT commands, but I wouldn't try it without the operator's manual anyway.... You will need your settings and the manual....maybe then "the site" might be willing to experiment. If you can't find a local Codex sales office in the Yellow pages, give me the nearest largest city and I'll give you their location. PS for the record, I don't have any relationship whatever with Codex other than actual field experience with their products.....with specific emphasis on the 2264/66....