stan@teroach.phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher) (06/29/89)
Our User Group is performing a revamp on it's BBS, and I have a question or two about possible modem upgrades. I understand the 'standard' for 9600 baud is between the U.S. Robotics and the Hayes. What's the feeling about purchasing either one of these? I hear there are more U.S. Robotics in use currently, true or false? I also hear that both companies offer substantial discounts to 'genuine' BBS's that want to buy their modems. Anyone know the discounted price each offers? And lastly, anyone know the phone numbers to contact U.S. Robotics and Hayes so one might inquire directly about such an offer? Thanks in advance. Stan Fisher - stan@teroach.phx.mcd.mot.com - asuvax!mcdphx!teroach!stan Motorola Microcomputer Division, Tempe, Arizona - (602) 438-3228
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (06/30/89)
In article <11167@mcdphx.phx.mcd.mot.com> stan@teroach.phx.mcd.mot.com (Stan Fisher) writes: > I understand the 'standard' for 9600 baud is between the U.S. Robotics >and the Hayes. What's the feeling about purchasing either one of these? The 9600 modem war is actually between US Robotics, Telebit and Hayes. Most IBM BBSs use USR Courier HST due to a very aggressive discount policy set up for BBS operators. I believe one could get the 'old' HST for around $495 (I don't know about the new one, which goes up to 14.4K baud). telebit was supposed to sup up a similar policy, but I am not aware that it has already been set up by now. >I hear there are more U.S. Robotics in use currently, true or false? True. >I also hear that both companies offer substantial discounts to 'genuine' >BBS's that want to buy their modems. Anyone know the discounted price >each offers? See Above. >And lastly, anyone know the phone numbers to contact U.S. Robotics and >Hayes so one might inquire directly about such an offer? USR Robotics can be reached at: US Sales Info: 800-342-5877 Sales dept general: 312-982-5001 I have no connection with US Robotics, except for the fact that I was loaned a number of units for testing, as Telebit did too. In my personal opinion the Telebit is less prone to line noise than the Courier HST, but very few BBSs support it, making the HST the easier choice. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
randy@jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Randy Hammock) (07/01/89)
> I understand the 'standard' for 9600 baud is between the U.S. Robotics >and the Hayes. What's the feeling about purchasing either one of these? >I hear there are more U.S. Robotics in use currently, true or false? >I also hear that both companies offer substantial discounts to 'genuine' >BBS's that want to buy their modems. Anyone know the discounted price >each offers? When I was running a FidoNet node about a year ago, the two major 9600 baud modems were U.S. Robotics "Courier" and the Telebit "Trailblaser". At that time, the Courier was running about 30 to 1 for the Trailblaser. In the Usenet world, the Trailblaser is more popular. The Hayes modems were concidered too weird as they were not "Hayes Compatable." If you want to contact U.S. Robotics try calling 1-800-555-1212 and ask the operator for an "800" number for U.S.R. -- /// | randy@jato.jpl.nasa.gov Telos - Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA AMIGA/// | hammock@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ** Voyager II at Neptune August 1989 ** \\\/// |-------------------------------------------------------------------- \XX/ | "If I wanted your opinions, I'd have given them to you!" - Mock
spierce@pnet01.cts.com (Stuart Pierce) (07/02/89)
Here in San Diego, about 95% of the 9600-baud bulletin boards use U.S. Robotics 9600 HST Modems. The other 5% are Trailblazers. Hayes isn't even in the running. Stuart W. Pierce
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (07/03/89)
In article <4533@crash.cts.com> spierce@pnet01.cts.com (Stuart Pierce) writes: >Here in San Diego, about 95% of the 9600-baud bulletin boards use U.S. >Robotics 9600 HST Modems. The other 5% are Trailblazers. And in Unix land, about 95% are Trailblazers. So I guess you've really got to make up your mind whether your long term interest is in e.g. UUCP transfers or in bulletin boards. This is really a shame; too bad that one of the two didn't become the de facto standard in *both* worlds. Although I suppose that, if this goes on, somebody'll come out with a clone that supports both types. I know nothing about the U.S. Robotics, but the Trailblazer 9600 baud (and the 19.2 model as well) is a very fine modem with great operating characteristics. (Based on multiple second hand observations; i.e. many of my friends are very happy with them.) Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (07/03/89)
In article <408@xdos.UUCP> doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: >This is really a shame; too bad that one of the two didn't become >the de facto standard in *both* worlds. Although I suppose that, if >this goes on, somebody'll come out with a clone that supports both >types. Hardly unlikely since both the Trailblazer and the Courier HST support 'proprietary' protocols. But the standard IS coming: it is called V.32. Telebit has announced a version of ther Trailblazer that supports V.32; US Robotics has the Courier Dual Standard that supports both V.32 and HST protocols; Hayes has a V.32 9600 baud modem, and the same is true of at least 5 other companies. V.32 has been adoped by the CCITT, which means that all Europeans will use it, too. Price is still a problem: for example, the Courier HST lists for $995, the Courier V.32 for $1495 and the Courier Dual Standard for $1595, though you can find them discounted quite a bit already. >I knowg about the U.S. Robotics, but the Trailblazer 9600 baud (and the >19.2 model as well) is a very fine modem with great operating characteristics. >(Based on multiple second hand observations; i.e. many of my friends are >very happy with them.) I had both Couriers (the HST) and Telebits (Trailblazer and T1000) when I had to add support for them in A-Talk III. It is true that what you want depends on who you want to connect to: if you need UNIX connections you should chose the Telebits, if BBSs is where you hang around the sure choice is the Courier. Both a very fine modems. -- Marco Papa 'doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
dwi@manta.NOSC.MIL (Steve Stamper) (07/03/89)
Is trailblazer the V.32 standard, I think USR makes a dual standard modem which does V.32 and HST 9600 baud protocols. Would this modem talk to both TrailBlazer and HST hosts? -Roger Uzun
karl@sugar.hackercorp.com (Karl Lehenbauer) (07/05/89)
In article <408@xdos.UUCP>, doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: > And in Unix land, about 95% are Trailblazers. So I guess you've really > got to make up your mind whether your long term interest is in e.g. > UUCP transfers or in bulletin boards. Yes. Note also that Trailablazers can run at speeds up to 18000 bits per second, and fall back at 50 or 100 bps (I forget which) intervals, whereas your basic unicarrier modems fall back by halving the baud rate. -- -- uunet!sugar!karl -- free Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
stephen@hpdml93.HP.COM (Stephen Holmstead) (07/05/89)
Sorry to eat up bandwidth, but I just had to jump in and make a
correction. People seem to always make a mistake when talking about
modem speeds. For example,
> I understand the 'standard' for 9600 baud is between the U.S. Robotics
^^^^
It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a 9600 _baud_ modem work on the telephone lines.
However, a 9600 _bps_ modem IS possible. I know the distinction is
minor, but since people continue to make the mistake, I want to clarify.
_bps_ refers to "bits per second" in the transfer rate. This is how
just about ALL communication links are rated.
_baud_ refers to "symbols per second" in the transfer rate. In older
modems (ie. 1200bps, 300bps, etc), each symbol comprised one bit worth
of data (one frequency was used to represent a ZERO and another was used
to represent a ONE). Thus, 1200 baud equals 1200 bps. However, when
people began increase the transfer rate, it only worked when there was a
direct connection. However, when trying to use the telephone system,
the maximum transfer rate is about 2400 baud. This is due to the
multiplexing done on the telephone lines. It sounds like when you are
talking on the phone that you have a continuous connection, but in
reality, you are being "time-sliced" with other conversations. So with
higher transfer rates, symbols would be lost in the "switches".
Therefore, people began sending more bits per symbol. People began
using multi-phase and multi-amplitude frequency codes to send 2, 4, or
8 bits per symbol. Thus, they could get 2400 bps, 4800 bps, and 9600 bps
while only sending at 1200 or 2400 baud.
So, when you buy a 9600 bps modem, it will really only transmit at 1200
or 2400 baud (depending on the implementation). Thus, it is a 9600
_bps_ modem and NOT a 9600 _baud_ modem!
Again, sorry to eat bandwidth, but I hope that everyone learned
something.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Holmstead
...!hplabs!hpdmlge!stephen //
Hewlett Packard Disk Memory Division \X/ Amiga Forever!
(208) 323-2840
I remind you that humans are only a tiny minority in this galaxy.
-- Spock, "The Apple," stardate 3715.6.dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) (07/06/89)
:In article <408@xdos.UUCP>, doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes:
:> And in Unix land, about 95% are Trailblazers. So I guess you've really
:> got to make up your mind whether your long term interest is in e.g.
:> UUCP transfers or in bulletin boards.
:
:Yes. Note also that Trailablazers can run at speeds up to 18000 bits per
:second, and fall back at 50 or 100 bps (I forget which) intervals, whereas
:your basic unicarrier modems fall back by halving the baud rate.
:--
:-- uunet!sugar!karl
:-- free Usenet access: (713) 438-5018
I'll tell y'all, I myself am going to wait for V.32 9600
baud modems to become cheap. They are full duplex and *standard*.
The disadvantage of most of the highspeed modems around
these days, trailblazer and courier HST included, is that they
are HALF duplex... they can only send at high speeds in a single
direction at a time.
For example, the courier HST's return channel is 300 baud and
it switches according to usage.
The other disadvantage is that all of these modems are compatible
only with other modems of the same type (for high speed mode). Yes,
all will support 'standard' 2400 baud on down but then all you have
is a 2400 baud modem, eh?
-Mattkarl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (07/06/89)
In article <408@xdos.UUCP> doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: >In article <4533@crash.cts.com> spierce@pnet01.cts.com (Stuart Pierce) writes: >>Here in San Diego, about 95% of the 9600-baud bulletin boards use U.S. >>Robotics 9600 HST Modems. The other 5% are Trailblazers. > >And in Unix land, about 95% are Trailblazers. So I guess you've really >got to make up your mind whether your long term interest is in e.g. >UUCP transfers or in bulletin boards. Right. And the reason? HSTs get about 240 cps on UUCP calls! That is right -- 2400 baud, even in fast 9600/19200 baud mode! Why? HST's backchannel won't accomodate the "ACK"s on the packets -- meaning that every time you get an ACK, the line turns around. Throughput goes in the toilet. If US Robotics had designed that monster a little better, they would have taken the Unix world by storm (they don't miss the bandwidth requirement by much, but it is enough to make the modems worthless for UUCP). As it is Telebit is my first and only choice when it comes to Unix machine modems. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 312 566-8911], Voice: [+1 312 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
papa@pollux.usc.edu (Marco Papa) (07/06/89)
In article <380027@hpdml93.HP.COM> stephen@hpdml93.HP.COM (Stephen Holmstead) writes: [...] >It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a 9600 _baud_ modem work on the telephone lines. >However, a 9600 _bps_ modem IS possible. >_bps_ refers to "bits per second" in the transfer rate. This is how >just about ALL communication links are rated. [...] >_baud_ refers to "symbols per second" in the transfer rate. >So, when you buy a 9600 bps modem, it will really only transmit at 1200 >or 2400 baud (depending on the implementation). Just to waste a little more bandwidth, let me point out that the new crop of hi-speed modems go well beyond 9600 *bps*. The Courier HST provides a top speed of 14,400 *bps*, which delivers an effective throughput of 26,000 *bps* when considering built-in MNP data compression. Thanks to Stephen for pointing out the difference between baud and bps. -- Marco Papa 'Doc' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= uucp:...!pollux!papa BIX:papa ARPAnet:pollux!papa@oberon.usc.edu "There's Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Diga and Caligari!" -- Rick Unland -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) (07/06/89)
In article <380027@hpdml93.HP.COM> stephen@hpdml93.HP.COM (Stephen Holmstead) writes: >_bps_ refers to "bits per second" in the transfer rate. [...] >_baud_ refers to "symbols per second" in the transfer rate. [...] >Again, sorry to eat bandwidth, but I hope that everyone learned >something. Nice article. Note that "baud" is so commonly used that there's zero likelihood that people in general will change, but it never hurts to shed a little enlightenment. If we're going to speak/write incorrectly, we may as well know it's wrong as we do it. :-) Doug -- Doug Merritt {pyramid,apple}!xdos!doug Member, Crusaders for a Better Tomorrow Professional Wildeyed Visionary
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (07/06/89)
In article <3686@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >>And in Unix land, about 95% are Trailblazers. So I guess you've really >>got to make up your mind whether your long term interest is in e.g. >>UUCP transfers or in bulletin boards. > >Right. And the reason? > >HSTs get about 240 cps on UUCP calls! That is right -- 2400 baud, even in >fast 9600/19200 baud mode! Why? > > HST's backchannel won't accomodate the "ACK"s on the packets -- > meaning that every time you get an ACK, the line turns around. > Throughput goes in the toilet. Yea, and not only do they suck on UUCP, but they are terrible at file transfers of any type at anything over 2400 baud for the same reason. Downloading from BBS's is murder using xmodem and you might as well go out to a movie and check back the next day if you are using kermit at 9600. Xmodem 1k, Ymodem and Zmodem are fairly fast because they send long packets before they request ACKs. xmodem uses 128 byte packets and kermit uses 80 bytes (or is it 78?) and they expect an ACK for each packet. so the line keeps switching between 9600 and 2400 baude every 128 or 80 bytes. REAL SLOW. At least that is what seems to be happening. I can transfer a file faster using kermit or xmodem at 2400 baud than using kermit or xmodem at 9600 baud on a HST. The HST is great if you are just hooking up to a BBS to read text (i.e. just use the HST and computer as a terminal), but forget it for file transfers unless you use ymodem or zmodem. The new HSTs and the new Trailblazers both support V.32 which is a protocol that should support 9600 both ways, and should solve the HST mode problems and make them compatible with each other. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error.
C506634@umcvmb.missouri.edu (Eric Edwards) (07/07/89)
In Measage-ID <38027@hpdml93.hp.com> stephan@hpdml93.hp.com says: >_baud_ refers to "symbols per second" in the transfer rate. In older >modems (ie. 1200bps, 300bps, etc), each symbol comprised one bit worth >of data (one frequency was used to represent a ZERO and another was used >to represent a ONE). Thus, 1200 baud equals 1200 bps. However, when If memory serves (It often does not) 1200 bps is 600 baud. >people began increase the transfer rate, it only worked when there was a >direct connection. However, when trying to use the telephone system, >the maximum transfer rate is about 2400 baud. This is due to the [Technical discussion of how modems work deleted] >Therefore, people began sending more bits per symbol. People began >So, when you buy a 9600 bps modem, it will really only transmit at 1200 >or 2400 baud (depending on the implementation). Thus, it is a 9600 >_bps_ modem and NOT a 9600 _baud_ modem! > >Again, sorry to eat bandwidth, but I hope that everyone learned >something. > As trivia maybe. Sorry. But this has been brought up lots of times and always has the same result. Nothing. Fact is that "baud" as a synonym for bps has entered the language and there's not much that can be done to stop it. It's a consise, convient term that is much preferable to yet another three letter acronym. And unless you are designing modems you won't even encounter the "old" definition. Bitnet: C506634@umcvmb.bitnet __________________________ Internet: C506634@umcvmb.missouri.edu / \.--------. / \ "The Amiga just isn't reliable enough unless you | | Eric |---------+ | know a lot about the machine" -- Jerry Pournelle | `--------' ! | ================================================|| .--------. ! | "I did notice that at my party people stood in | | Edwards|_________+ | line to play with the Amiga"-- Jerry Pournelle | /`--------' | BYTE, October '88 \__________________________/
eric@topaz.rutgers.edu (Eric Lavitsky) (07/08/89)
In article <8907052003.AA04637@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> dillon@POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU (Matt Dillon) writes: > :In article <408@xdos.UUCP>, doug@xdos.UUCP (Doug Merritt) writes: > :Yes. Note also that Trailablazers can run at speeds up to 18000 bits per > :second, and fall back at 50 or 100 bps (I forget which) intervals, whereas > :your basic unicarrier modems fall back by halving the baud rate. > > I'll tell y'all, I myself am going to wait for V.32 9600 > baud modems to become cheap. They are full duplex and *standard*. Indeed - if you don't mind spending the money now, the Telebit 2500 provides 3-2400 baud standard, 9600 baud V.32 and 9600/19.2K PEP (which is Telebit's half-duplex protocol spoofing scheme known as the Packet Ensemble Protocol). The unit retails for around $1500.00. You are right about the half duplex problem - it just doesn't cut it for interactive use, even though the line dynamically adjusts with the flow of traffic. The other problem is with V.32 - there is no standard way of falling back gradually below 4800 baud in the event of bad line conditions. -Eric -- ARPA: LAVITSKY@RUTGERS.EDU UUCP: ...rutgers!tstream!eric eric@topaz.rutgers.edu
tron1@tronsbox.UUCP (HIM) (07/09/89)
>Item: 542 by *Masked* at POSTGRES.BERKELEY.EDU >Author: [Matt Dillon] > I'll tell y'all, I myself am going to wait for V.32 9600 >baud modems to become cheap. They are full duplex and *standard*. > The disadvantage of most of the highspeed modems around > these days, trailblazer and courier HST included, is that they > are HALF duplex... they can only send at high speeds in a single > direction at a time. Ah, but the Telebit 2500 IS V.32 9600 capable. And remember , the Telebits protocal participation means that even thought YOU are using Y- modem, the two telebits are NOT. You send a Ymodem packet to the modem, and >YOUR< local modem send you the ACK... then it send the data to the other Telebit. As longf as there is NO error, the other Telebit does NOT 'ACK', so the line does NOT TURN AROUND. (ooops -- bad english up there). All in all, you can't loose with Telebit. **************************************************************************** Something is basically wrong with anyone who uses a disclaimer when they talk "My thoughts claim no responsibility for my body" tron1@tronsbox.UUCP Sysop, the Penthouse ]I[ BBS (201)759-8450 (201)759-8568
alh@hprmokg.HP.COM (Al Harrington) (07/10/89)
> >The HST is great if you are just hooking up to a BBS to read text (i.e. just >use the HST and computer as a terminal), but forget it for file transfers >unless you use ymodem or zmodem. > Why would you want to use Xmodem or Kermit? Those are slow at *any* speed, not just 9600+. I plan on getting 2 9600/19.2k modems for our Unix machine. They will be HST's! We're not using them for UUCP so that won't be an issue. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | -Al Harrington / \_/ \ "I want you to tell your | | /( ( ) )\ friends about me." | | alh@hprmo.HP.COM ( \__/ \__/ ) | | ..{hplabs,hp-sde}!hprmo!alh \ __ __ / "Who are you?" | | \( \ / )/ | | \ V / "I'm Batman" | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | My comments in no way reflect the views or opinions of HP | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ugkamins@marvin.cs.buffalo.edu (Dr. R. Chandra) (07/10/89)
In article <380027@hpdml93.HP.COM>, stephen@hpdml93 (Stephen Holmstead) writes:
=>_baud_ refers to "symbols per second" in the transfer rate. In older
=>modems (ie. 1200bps, 300bps, etc), each symbol comprised one bit worth
=>of data (one frequency was used to represent a ZERO and another was used
=>to represent a ONE). Thus, 1200 baud equals 1200 bps. However, when
=>people began increase the transfer rate, it only worked when there was a
=>direct connection. However, when trying to use the telephone system,
=>the maximum transfer rate is about 2400 baud. This is due to the
=>multiplexing done on the telephone lines. It sounds like when you are
Well, just as you said you HAD to jump in and correct, I feel I must
do the same for(?) you. BAUD refers to "transitions per second."
Virtually all the literature I have read states that the maximum data
transfer rate attainable on a PSTN line is 1200 baud TOTAL, meaning
600 baud in each direction. Sorry, but unless you are not talking
about Bell 212A, each direction is going at 600 baud twice over, once
for FSK and the other for PSK. Such arrangements are referred to as
dibits, or "two bits." Data rates (bps) that are faster are
accomplished by means of AM, multiple carriers, and dividing the phase
transitions into more phase angles. The best explanation I've seen so
far, which also jives with other sources I've seen too, is _C
Programmer's Guide to Serial Communications_ by Joe Campbell, pub. by
Howard W. Sams & Co.
It is also quite true that communications companies multiplex their
traffic to achieve higher rates, both voice and data (the latter with
PS/VAN's).
As stated in this book, it is not (necessarily) the fault of
multiplexing of the phone "conversations," but the historical (to be
read conservative) nature of PSTN service. It is meant to be
optimized for clear communication for voice, not faithful reproduction
of sound, or transmittal of data. (The major constraint is
bandwidth--from about 300 to 3K Hz. Fitting two carriers for 212A
plus their associated sidebands when modulated is a miracle to me.)
I agree with you, though. I *HATE* when people blur the distinctions
between baud rate and data rate.
---
a-WYSIWYG, a-WYSIWIG _ _
a-WYSIWYG, a-WYSIWIG ////
a-WYSIWYG, a-WYSIWIG ////
a-WYSIWYG, a-WYSIWIG ////
In the jungle _ _ ////
The silicon jungle \\\\ ////
The process sleeps tonight \\\////
\_X_/
ugkamins@sunybcs.UUCP (UnderGraduate john i. KAMINSki)
--