Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!maui.qualcomm.com!rdippold From: rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Another 9600 protocol! Message-ID: <1991Mar7.024728.8330@qualcomm.com> Date: 7 Mar 91 02:47:28 GMT References: <3826.27d2479a@hayes.uucp> <1991Mar5.212652.27062@qualcomm.com> Sender: news@qualcomm.com Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA Lines: 14 In article bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >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. Thank you for that information... what's the world coming to when you can't trust PC Magazine?