Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!nstar!larry From: larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: T1000 Message-ID: <1991May01.020407.1289@nstar.rn.com> Date: 1 May 91 02:04:07 GMT References: <585@fudd.dataco.UUCP> <35@mich-ns.Michigan.COM> <1991Apr27.233044.22434@nstar.rn.com> <1991Apr30.011012.12093@osh3.OSHA.GOV> Organization: NSTAR, Indiana's LARGEST BBS 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 Lines: 29 chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >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? I think the author was making mention that the T1000 for online use isn't much better than a 2400 baud modem - which is about the truth. For on-line, V.32bis is the latest standard, and Telebit hasn't even jumped on the v.32bis bandwagon as of yet. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}