Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!killer!pollux!dalsqnt!usl!usl-pc!jpdres10
From: jpdres10@usl-pc.usl.edu (Green Eric Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V.32 will dominate the marketplace (Was: Re: Which is best?
Message-ID: <89@usl-pc.usl.edu>
Date: 7 Nov 88 17:01:46 GMT
References: <9515@conexch.UUCP> <1125@vsi1.UUCP> <299@telebit.UUCP> <10711@ <10881@cup.portal.com>
Reply-To: elg@killer.UUCP
Distribution: na
Organization: Univ. of Southwestern La., Lafayette
Lines: 82

In article <10881@cup.portal.com> David@cup.portal.com (David Michael McCord) writes:
>First of all, I knew that I was going to get flamed by posting opinons rather
>divergent to the opinions of the majority in this group.  Some of the flames 

OPINIONS is the operative word. Opinions can be held by many, but
facts are a rare bird indeed.

>higher-level applications such as MNP with modulation techniques, etc.  

The PEP modulation technique used by Telebit automatically adjusts to
line quality, which V.32 does not. I believe this is what people were
referring to when they noted the superior error handling of the
Telebit when compared to current V.32 modems.

>business case also carries with it significant disadvantages related to 
>interoperability and market support.  These disadvantageous factors do not 

Interoperability: "Will it work with the systems that I want to call?"
For dedicated UUCP file-transfer use, the answer is "Yes" for Telebit,
and "No" for V.32. For other applications (e.g. general
telecommunications use, dial-in modems, etc.), the answer may very
well be different.

Market support: Many large corporations put large emphasis on "market
support", even to the extent that they will only buy IBM equipment
because IBM is the largest computer company. Never mind that the
equipment is useless for the suggested application. Buy it.

In large part, that's how the University of SW Louisiana ended up with
a godaweful IBM 3090 mainframe. Don't get me wrong, the 3090 is a nice
machine -- for its intended application (large databases, medium-scale
scientific applications). But as an instructional machine, it is a
nightmare, to such extent that the majority of classes are conducted
on Unix-based machines such as the Pyramid 90x that I'm typing this
from. There is rarely more than 40 people logged into the 3090.

Of course, one reason for our problems with IBM is interoperability --
all our machines are accessed via a campus-wide network, meaning that
one has to use a 7171 protocol converter and ordinary ASCII terminals
with the 3090. That is extremely painful. Using Xedit, one has to do
all sorts of alt-cokebottle-foo combinations, and 9600 baud page
refreshes crawl. But market support, y'know... who cares if it's not
easily interoperable with the majority of solutions used for the
intended application? 

In any event, this is a typical example of corporate-style thinking
about market support ("The majority of applications are on IBM, so
we'll get the biggest baddest IBM machine possible") resulting in an
inappropriate choice for the intended application (research and
instruction). Such thinking is one of the reasons that U.S.
corporations are going down the drain compared with their Japanese
equivalents... new technology doesn't have "market support", so
obsolete or inappropriate technology is substituted instead.

>In my opinion, USENET news distribution is obviously a global, public access 
>application.  The negative dollars and cents value of using a nonstandard 
>medium for distribution is being ignored if all that is compared is
> the price 
>of the modems.  The same is true of bulletin boards, Telenet, etc.

USENET news distribution is inherently different from bulletin boards,
Portal, Telenet, etc. Modems for USENET news distribution are
generally dedicated to that single purpose. Modems which do UUCP
spoofing and which allow speeds of up to 19,200 baud are quite useful
for this single purpose (UUCP file transfers). Thus, the majority of
9600-baud-or-faster UUCP sites are running Telebit (or equivalent)
modems (thus smashing your "interoperability" argument to pieces).  If
such modems cost half of what slower 9600 baud modems cost, that is
only an additional argument in favor of what is simply the most
appropriate technology for the application.

>I still think you guys have made a big mistake.

Only if they put Telebit modems on dial-ups... interoperability,
y'know (most people are using HSTs or, soon, V.32, for such
general-purpose applications). Using Telebit modems for a single
dedicated application, on the other hand (UUCP file transfer), makes
quite a bit of sense.

--
Eric Green   {ames,mit-eddie,osu-cis,...}!killer!elg, killer!usl!elg, etc.
 P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509