Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!ukma!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!phri!roy
From: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Standards/Trailblazer Discussion
Message-ID: <3419@phri.UUCP>
Date: 3 Aug 88 14:12:18 GMT
References: <7805@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith)
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 31



In article <3408@phri.UUCP> I said:
> buy the best you can now and toss them in a year or two if the winds
> of change make them no longer the best choice.

In article <7805@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com replies:
> he seems to agree with my contention that non-standard equipment is 
> disposable, and is headed for the trash can in a few years.

	David misses my point, which is that *ALL* computer equipment is
disposable and is headed for the trash can in a few years.  It wasn't too
many years ago when I was agonizing over whether I should go with Bell 212A
(i.e. standard) modems or some other manufacturer's (was it Ventel?) almost
standard 1200 baud modems which were supposed to be more resistant to line
noise.  Guess what?  5 years later, it makes precious little difference
which decision I made then because we almost never use 1200 baud any more
and I fully expect that within a year or two we won't support it any more.

	Yes, I'm convinced that Trailblazers are the best 9600 baud dial-up
modems made today and that people would have to be nuts to buy anything
else (in fact, I refused the gift of a MicroComm 9624/X not long ago).  On
the other hand, I'm also sure that 5 years from now my Trailblazers will be
sitting in that pile of "broken but not worth repairing" equipment.  Why am
I going to need 9600 bps modems when I've got 64 kbps digital service on my
home phone line?
-- 
Roy Smith, System Administrator
Public Health Research Institute
{allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net
"The connector is the network"