Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!vsi1!wyse!mips!sultra!dtynan
From: dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Which is best?
Summary: Advertisement copy at best.
Message-ID: <2590@sultra.UUCP>
Date: 21 Oct 88 05:09:32 GMT
References: <9515@conexch.UUCP>
Organization: Tynan Computers, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 21

With respect to the above article (please refer back - it's too long to
include), I found it pure ad-copy.  It was neither informative nor objective.
In summary; What other people have done is OK, but it's wrong.  For a *real*
solution, buy *USRobotics*.  That's an OK argument for something that seeks
to persuade a potential customer.  Something, however, that promises to give
an insight into the dizzying world of modems, it's not.  My personal opinion
is that dividing up the bandwidth into multiple channels is an improvement
over two distinct hi-speed/lo-speed channels.  Why?  Because the Trailblazer
*could* split the channels thusly.  Or, perhaps, devote 256 to each direction,
producing 2400 bidirectional.  Adaptively configuring channels based on data
flow in both directions *has* to be better.  What if I remotely read news?
Every ten seconds or so, I hit ' ' or 'n'.  Surely I don't need 300 baud for
that?  What about uucp?  Is 300 baud enough for all those 'g' acknowledge
packets?  Anyway, like I said, that's just my opinion.  USR would be better
served by producing something a little less biased, and hence a lot more
believable.
						- Der
-- 
Reply:	dtynan@sultra.UUCP		(Der Tynan @ Tynan Computers)
	{mips,pyramid}!sultra!dtynan
	Cast a cold eye on life, on death.  Horseman, pass by...    [WBY]