Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mstar!mstar.morningstar.com!bob
From: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Another 9600 protocol!
Message-ID: <BOB.91Mar6175036@volitans.MorningStar.Com>
Date: 6 Mar 91 22:50:43 GMT
References: <1991Mar2.005717.14483@qiclab.scn.rain.com>
	<3826.27d2479a@hayes.uucp> <1991Mar5.212652.27062@qualcomm.com>
Sender: usenet@MorningStar.COM (USENET Administrator)
Reply-To: bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield)
Organization: Morning Star Technologies
Lines: 16
In-Reply-To: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com's message of 5 Mar 91 21:26:52 GMT

In article <1991Mar5.212652.27062@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
   Regardless of the supposed compatability, not all supposed V.32
   modems will connect with each other even with V.32 (PC Magazine,
   Dec 11, 1990, They reviewed several (7?) V.32 modems), correctly.

When that review was published, it drew widespread derision in this
forum.  PC Mag's evaluation lab staff may have plenty of expertise
with PCs, but they seemed to have trouble with their test modems.
Their lab bench results didn't coincide with the real-world
experiences of many users who expressed their opinions here.

   I imagine, though, that those modems that are less than compatible
   with most of the others will either shape up or disappear.

That's the way standards work in a free market.  It all benefits the
user.