Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!osh3!chip From: chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: T1000 Message-ID: <1991Apr30.011012.12093@osh3.OSHA.GOV> Date: 30 Apr 91 01:10:12 GMT References: <585@fudd.dataco.UUCP> <35@mich-ns.Michigan.COM> <1991Apr27.233044.22434@nstar.rn.com> Organization: U.S. D.O.L - Occupational Safety & Health Admin. Lines: 20 In peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >In article <1991Apr27.233044.22434@nstar.rn.com>, larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >> T1000? Maybe for newsfeeds - but not for on-line usage. >What's the application? If it's online stuff, you might well be wasting your >money going over 2400 baud. If it's file transfers, I'd go with the TB (UUCP >isn't the only protocol it spoofs). And if you have any question about the >quality of the line, give the TB a try. It's much more reliable than any modem, >at any speed, MNP included. Why do you say over 2400 is a waste for on-line. Here, where you will be waiting on screens to display is where I feel it makes the most difference. It certainly is nice to reduce your LD bills with a high speed modem for file transfers, but with the cost of 9600 bps modems nowadays why buy anything else? -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov