Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ncar!oddjob!mimsy!chris
From: chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Standards/Trailblazer Discussion
Message-ID: <12876@mimsy.UUCP>
Date: 7 Aug 88 02:13:07 GMT
References: <7805@cup.portal.com> <309@synsys.UUCP> <7897@cup.portal.com>
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742
Lines: 28

>In article <309@synsys.UUCP> john@synsys.UUCP (John C. Rossmann) writes:
>>        Although I'm possibly wrong here, what little I've read seems to say
>>that V.32 isn't really that much of a standard yet -- or at least that V.32
>>doesn't have significant market penetration yet.

In article <7897@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com writes:
>Well, this argument greatly resembles the great 802.3 vs. Ethernet debate 
>back when the IEEE decided to not simply endorse standard Ethernet.  They 
>made some changes ... and came out with 802.3.

Indeed.  And now many Ethernet manufacturers provide two (or more)
modes: `useful' mode and `useless' mode.  `Useful' is Ethernet 2; you
can guess which the other is.  (Obviously I am biased since we use
Ethernet 2 :-) .)  (A third mode is Ethernet 1, which is like 2 but is
DC coupled.)

>The V.32 standard exists.  Arguing that it can be ignored because it 
>doesn't have x percent of the market is arguing against all of the 
>communications standards ever formulated, because at one time or another 
>they all lacked x percent of the market.

Many of them still do.  Numerous standards were never much used at
all.  It is impossible to predict whether new standards such as V.32
will become popular, although manufacturers can get rich if they guess
right.  (Users get poor either way :-) .)
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris