Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!nuchat!texbell!bigtex!james From: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Which is best? Message-ID: <10213@bigtex.cactus.org> Date: 4 Nov 88 04:27:47 GMT References: <9515@conexch.UUCP> <1125@vsi1.UUCP> <299@telebit.UUCP> <10711@ <10805@cup.portal.com> Reply-To: james@bigtex.cactus.org (James Van Artsdalen) Distribution: na Organization: Institute of Applied Cosmology, Austin TX Lines: 34 In <10805@cup.portal.com>, David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) wrote: > I was gratified to see this confirmation of my statement that V.32 > was going to smash the telebit/hst/etceteras "within a year". There are two fundemental problems you simply haven't addressed. 1. V.32 modems are substantially slower than the Trailblazer over clean lines. I regularly see 1400cps over local connections, and no local connections do worse than 1000cps except on rare occassions. My Tokyo link also stays up over 1000cps. The V.32 modems are limited to 878cps using uucp, and no more than 960cps using something like Zmodem. 2. V.32 appears to have no error handling. Some people may implement MNP or something like it, but the fact is that two V.32 modems may or may not talk well with each other. There's also a question of how gracefully mildly impaired lines are handled: how does V.32 back off? I may well buy a couple of V.32s in the next year or so for SLIP applications. But I'll always have a TB+ for bulk news & mail traffic, because I just can't afford to increase my line usage and costs by 30% or more. > And I thought I was going out on a limb! Well, basically, you are. Think more like a buyer and less like a member of a standards committee. The TB+ certainly has its quirks, but the fact is that it is cheaper than V.32 to buy *and operate* and will remain so indefinitely because of the high speed of the TB+. -- James R. Van Artsdalen james@bigtex.cactus.org "Live Free or Die" Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 338-8789 9505 Arboretum Blvd Austin TX 78759