Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!paralogics!shaw
From: shaw@paralogics.UUCP (Guy Shaw)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.fax
Subject: Re: Fax Quality
Message-ID: <427@paralogics.UUCP>
Date: 18 Mar 91 07:53:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: paralogi.427
References: <3833.27d6468f@hayes.uucp> <1526@integow.uucp> <3842.27da8a2f@hayes.uucp>
Organization: Paralogics
Lines: 26


As long as changes are being made, the people who introduce new technology
and/or a new standard must overcome the inertia of all the existing fax modems.
So, then, why shouldn't this be the time to just switch to V.32 for fax?
What does V.29+V.17 have that couldn't be done with V.32?

There must be something I don't understand about how the transition can be
made to V.29+V.17 more easily than switching to V.32

Am I wrong in these assumptions:
 1) the only reasons that fax modems and computer modems are different are
    purely historical, and 
 2) if the proliferation of cheap personal computers had arrived earlier,
    fax would just be some standard encoding format (a la uuencode) and
    not have modem technology of its own.

If these are misconceptions, then do feel free to straighten me out.
If this is a topic in a frequently asked questions list, then a
referral would be good enough.  But, I have been browsing this newsgroup
for a while and have not seen one.  FAXFAQ, anyone?

Asking stupid questions is a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it.
-- 
Guy Shaw
Paralogics
paralogics!shaw@uunet.uu.net  or  uunet!paralogics!shaw