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> <BOB.91Mar6175036@volitans.MorningStar.Com>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 14

In article <BOB.91Mar6175036@volitans.MorningStar.Com> 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?