Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!maytag!xenitec!zswamp!root
From: root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: CODEX  V.32bis  Modems:  Experiences?
Message-ID: <6894.27CDE028@zswamp.fidonet.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 91 19:57:46 EST
Organization: Izot's Swamp BBS - Kitchener, Ontario

Thaddeus P. Floryan (thad@public.BTR.COM ) wrote:

 >Sigh.  Seems every newsgroup has its share of opinionated 
 >chest-beaters who, in my opinion:

 > - continuously demonstrate their lack of reading comprehension,
 > - veil their apparent vested interests, 
 > - provide NO useful information to others,
 > - disinform via allegations,
 > - malign that which is not their personal favorite, and
 > - sidestep technical matters.

   If these habits bothered you so much, then why do you exhibit some of them?   
I've read the thread and believe that you do not have an exclusive firm grasp 
of what was said!

 >Yet Lon rags on about CODEX being fully V.32 compliant and 
 >then insinuates Telebit and Digicom are only partially compliant.

   Lon did not insinuate partial compliance; he merely countered what he 
thought was a suggestion on your part that CODEX was not fully compliant.  He 
also explicitly stated that configuration, and not standards compliance, might 
not be the problem.  This seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

 >The situation with V.32 is NOT like the decade-ago horrors 
 >of 1200 baud operation.  Either the modems ARE compliant
 >or they ARE NOT compliant.

   I disagree strongly!  The standards are more complex than ever, and 
marginal compliance, i.e. modems which follow the basic standard but only 
connect well with certain other modems, is more commonplace than ever.

   Furthermore, satisfactory connections once depended only on the two modems 
supporting the same standard.  Today even perfectly compliant V.32 (or any 
other standard) modems may connect poorly (or not at all) because of their 
configurations.

   While on that topic, I should comment that almost every high speed modem 
owner or user has a very firm idea of how they should be configured, and I've 
*never*, in years of looking, found someone whose ideas match mine.  The 
result is that I tell people *not* to put too much faith in the default 
configurations published by others because they may work only in specific 
circumstances - I reached this conclusion only after noting that many setup 
"experts" have an all or nothing result, i.e. they can configure a modem in a 
few minutes and it will either work perfectly or not at all because they've 
only put into it what worked for them in hit and miss trials elsewhere... they 
really don't know what they're doing!

   I admit that I fall into that general field, with my only redeeming 
qualities being that I have used several varieties of high speed modems over 
the years in a wide range of applications, and that I do have a background, 
however sparse, in electrical engineering... including communications.

 >And then he opines CODEX is the "best" without providing a 
 >comparative list,
 >failing again to respond to the original poster's request 
 >for any INFORMATION about CODEX, good or bad.

   What he said was that they always worked for him, and that he would regard 
with suspicion any suggestion of imperfections.

 >My personal experience with CODEX products is bad.

   That's fine, but you don't expect someone with years' good experience with 
CODEX to accept your word for it, do you?
 

--  
UUCP:     watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent
Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org     | Kitchener, Ontario
FidoNet:  SYSOP, 1:221/171            | N2M 5E6 CANADA
Data:     (519) 742-8939              | (519) 741-9553
The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent 
steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be failing 
long after you and I have discovered new worlds.        - me