tnixon@hayes.uucp (06/24/91)
For your information, Hayes today announced a new product, the
V-series ULTRA Smartmodem 14400 (Ultra 144). The product has
basically the same features as the Ultra 96, with the addition of
CCITT V.32bis modulation at 4800, 7200, 9600, 12000, and 14400 bps.
With V.42bis, the modem can acheieve up to 38,400bps throughput (the
maximum DTE interface speed is 38,400).
The product will be available in North America in August, 1991, for
an estimate retail price of US$1199 and CN$1699. Users of existing
Ultra 96 modems whose applications require the increased line speeds
of Ultra 144 may obtain an upgrade from Ultra 96 to Ultra 144 for
US$275 and CN$330.
If you would like a copy of the full press announcement, please visit
Online with Hayes (GO HAYES) on CompuServe, the Online with Hayes
Forum (GO HAYFORUM), the Online with Hayes BBS (800-874-2937 or
404-446-6336), or send me a request by email. For more information,
contact Hayes Customer Service at 404-441-1617 (US) or 416-283-2627
(Canada).
-- Toby
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404
P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (06/25/91)
In article <4033.2865eaac@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: > [Ultra 144 with v32bis] > The product will be available in North America in August, 1991, for > an estimate retail price of US$1199 and CN$1699. Users of existing > Ultra 96 modems whose applications require the increased line speeds > of Ultra 144 may obtain an upgrade from Ultra 96 to Ultra 144 for > US$275 and CN$330. Well, for all those people who were flaming Telebit for having an "expensive" upgrade to v32bis with their T1600's, seems like Hayes has approximately the same pricing with their upgrade. Actually I think $250~ for an upgrade to double the speed isn't too bad. What I had hoped for both Hayes and Telebit was that they would offer everyone who had bought a v32 only modem in the last x months a free upgrade to v32bis. Of course, this doesn't affect me, a poor T2500 owner. Come on Telebit! - jiro nakamura jiro@shaman.com -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!"
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (06/25/91)
In article <4033.2865eaac@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: > Hayes today announced a new product, the > V-series ULTRA Smartmodem 14400 (Ultra 144). The product has > basically the same features as the Ultra 96, with the addition of > CCITT V.32bis modulation Toby, does it have different hardware from the old Ultra ? Faster CPU perhaps ? Or is the upgrade one of those keyed ROM changes? -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
tnixon@hayes.uucp (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun25.025544.6882@shaman.com>, jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > Well, for all those people who were flaming Telebit for having an > "expensive" upgrade to v32bis with their T1600's, seems like Hayes has > approximately the same pricing with their upgrade. Yes, and I seem to recall that USRobotics charged about the same thing for their upgrade, when it was available (I don't think it is, anymore). USR's upgrade involved replacing the entire modem circuit board, and I believe Hayes' will be the same. Chances are, the cost of Telebit's upgrade is for the same reason. All of these modems may have been originally designed with upgradability at low cost in mind, but when it comes down to actually doing it, you sometimes find that a number of parts must be upgraded to faster parts, and it just makes more sense to replace the board with a brand new factory-built circuit board than try to literally upgrade the board by manually replacing individual components. > Actually I think $250~ for an upgrade to double the speed isn't too > bad. What I had hoped for both Hayes and Telebit was that they would offer > everyone who had bought a v32 only modem in the last x months a free upgrade > to v32bis. Hayes is doing that now, more or less. Consider that the list price of Ultra 96 is $999, and the list price for Ultra 144 will be $1199. That's a $200 difference, which will probably continue to be reflected in "street prices" even after dealer discounting. From June 17 to August 18, however, Hayes is offering a $150 cash rebate on Ultra 96. This makes the total differential $350. After paying the $275 upgrade cost, you're still $75 ahead compared to waiting until Ultra 144 ships and buying one then. -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net
edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) (06/25/91)
In article <1991Jun25.025544.6882@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > Well, for all those people who were flaming Telebit for having an >"expensive" upgrade to v32bis with their T1600's, seems like Hayes has >approximately the same pricing with their upgrade. > Actually I think $250~ for an upgrade to double the speed isn't too >bad. It's only a 50% increase in speed. So I guess in some simple-minded way, a ~50% increase in price makes sense. Except that it ignores the existance of cheaper, high-quality alternatives, such as USR. Hayes can, no doubt, get away with this, based on their brand name. Telebit thinks they can play this game, too. We shall see... -Ed Hall edhall@rand.org
hartzell@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU (George Hartzell) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.025544.6882@shaman.com> jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes:
[...]
Well, for all those people who were flaming Telebit for having an
"expensive" upgrade to v32bis with their T1600's, seems like Hayes has
approximately the same pricing with their upgrade.
How old is the Ultra96? Is it closer in "age" to the T2500 or the T1600?
[...]
everyone who had bought a v32 only modem in the last x months a free upgrade
to v32bis.
Now there's an idea that I like.
g.
--
George Hartzell voice: (415) 725-7421
Stanford Yeast Genome Project fax: (415)-723-7016
Stanford School of Medicine, Rm S337 email: hartzell@sumex-aim.Stanford.EDU
Stanford, CA 94305-5120Carra_its-me_Bussa@cup.portal.com (06/26/91)
In article <4037.286731d3@hayes.uucp>, tnixon@hayes.uucp (Toby Nixon) writes: > ...[Hayes v.32bis upgrade]... After paying > the $275 upgrade cost, you're still $75 ahead compared to waiting > until Ultra 144 ships and buying one then. Yea, but you don't get the cute little faceplate that says, "Ultra 14400", do you?? :-) Carra Bussa @ cup.portal.com
kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) (06/27/91)
Pardon my dumbness, but why don't V.32bis modems have a DTE interface speed of
57,600bps? I thought, with V.42bis data compression, that modems were supposed
to have a DTE that was four times the modulation rate. Thanks in advance for
your patient response.
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, crash}!orbit!pnet51!kurt
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!kurt@nosc.mil
INET: kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.orgscott@skypod.guild.org (Scott Campbell) (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.102522.1734@robobar.co.uk> ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >In article <4033.2865eaac@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: > >> Hayes today announced a new product, the >> V-series ULTRA Smartmodem 14400 (Ultra 144). The product has >> basically the same features as the Ultra 96, with the addition of >> CCITT V.32bis modulation > >Toby, does it have different hardware from the old Ultra ? Faster >CPU perhaps ? Or is the upgrade one of those keyed ROM changes? I called Hayes today. Apparrently it is a full modem swap. You give them your ultra 96 and $275 and they give you a ultra 144. scott -- Scott J.M. Campbell scott@skypod.guild.org Skypod Communications Inc. ..!gatech!dscatl!daysinns!skypod!scott 1001 Bay Street, Suite 1210 ..!uunet!utai!lsuc!becker!skypod!scott Toronto, Ont. (416) 924-4059 ..!epas.utoronto.ca!nyama!skypod!scott
tnixon@hayes.uucp (06/27/91)
In article <43688@cup.portal.com>, Carra_its-me_Bussa@cup.portal.com writes: > In article <4037.286731d3@hayes.uucp>, tnixon@hayes.uucp (Toby > Nixon) writes: > >> ...[Hayes v.32bis upgrade]... After paying >> the $275 upgrade cost, you're still $75 ahead compared to waiting >> until Ultra 144 ships and buying one then. > > Yea, but you don't get the cute little faceplate that says, "Ultra > 14400", do you?? :-) Yes, I think you would. In the past when Hayes has had modem upgrades that changed the product from one class to another (such as adding V.42 to non-V.42 V-series modems), the plastic faceplate was included in the upgrade kit (normally installed by Hayes Warranty Repair, not the user). -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net
tnixon@hayes.uucp (06/27/91)
In article <1991Jun25.102522.1734@robobar.co.uk>, ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: >> Hayes today announced a new product, the >> V-series ULTRA Smartmodem 14400 (Ultra 144). The product has >> basically the same features as the Ultra 96, with the addition of >> CCITT V.32bis modulation > > Toby, does it have different hardware from the old Ultra ? Faster > CPU perhaps ? Or is the upgrade one of those keyed ROM changes? Although we had hoped for the upgrade to be only a ROM change, when it finally got down to it, we needed to change a number of components in both the analog and digital sections of the modem to get the performance we want (and know our users demand). Yes, it does include faster parts, but also more precise parts to improve signal quality. The "upgrade" is really a complete replacement for the circuit board in the modem (it's better to replace the board with a factory-built one than try to manually replace the parts that need replacing). -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net
lstowell@pyrnova.pyramid.com (Lon Stowell) (06/28/91)
In article <5234@orbit.cts.com> kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) writes: >Pardon my dumbness, but why don't V.32bis modems have a DTE interface speed of >57,600bps? I thought, with V.42bis data compression, that modems were supposed >to have a DTE that was four times the modulation rate. Thanks in advance for >your patient response. > A few of them do. The other vendors (38.4 folks) maintain that the actual NUMBER of connections where you can really get 57.6 throughput isn't sufficient to warrant this....they maintain that you are more likely to be running at 38.4 effective thru-put. Likely quite a bit of truth there, given the sources. One wonders though if it isn't that UARTS that can run 57.6 are a few pennies more expensive than the ones that only go up to 38.4.....and a LOT of hardware DTE's don't have UARTS that can go 57.6 either. [ If 19.2 is EXTA, and 38.4 is EXTB, would 57.6 be EXTC? >:-) ]
mlikier@telebit.com (Marty Likier) (06/28/91)
In article <5234@orbit.cts.com> kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) writes: >Pardon my dumbness, but why don't V.32bis modems have a DTE interface speed of >57,600bps? I thought, with V.42bis data compression, that modems were supposed >to have a DTE that was four times the modulation rate. Thanks in advance for >your patient response. > DISCLAIMER: I am not a modem engineer! However 2 reasons come to my mind. (1) V.42bis is probably the most intensive computational process within the modem. And it is as simple as one vendor implementing V.42bis better than another.(Or vice-a-versa) (2) the RS232 standard is spec'd at 19,200 and for a modem interface speed of 57,600, it requires special line drivers and receivers. =========================================================================== Marty Likier | Marketing Product Manager |"You are only limited by your imagination... Telebit Corporation | which means you are not limited at all." Voice: 408-745-3126 | FAX: 408-745-3802 | unknown internet:mlikier@telebit.com | ===========================================================================
tnixon@hayes.uucp (06/28/91)
In article <5234@orbit.cts.com>, kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kurt Sletterdahl) writes: > Pardon my dumbness, but why don't V.32bis modems have a DTE interface speed of > 57,600bps? I thought, with V.42bis data compression, that modems were supposed > to have a DTE that was four times the modulation rate. Thanks in advance for > your patient response. I suspect that most manufacturers WILL support 57,600 DTE speed in their second generation V.32bis products. But the first generation is, for the most part, an upgrade to a V.32/V.42bis product, many of which are already pushing the limits of the processing power of their microprocessors (the ones used for error control and data compression). If you increase only the phone line speed by 50%, you only increase the total number of interrupts per second that the modem may have to process by about 12%, which is probably reachable by most modems. But if you increase the DTE speed to 57,600, the number of interrupts per second then is 50% over the original V.32/V.42bis modem, and few modems are built with this much excess processor capacity (if they were, you'd be paying for power you can't use). In my discussions with representatives of other modem manufacturers, the consensus seems to be that the primary goals of the first round of V.32bis product introductions is to (a) provide 14400bps synchronous capability, for full duplex dial-backup of V.33 leased lines; (b) provide 1700 cps throughput for transfer of pre-compressed or uncompressible data; and (c) support a full 3840cps throughput for a larger portion of compressible files, since you only need to achieve a 2.25-to-1 compression ratio with V.32bis instead of 3.33-to-1 with V.32 (it's not really 4-to-1, because some of the improvement comes from the stripping of start and stop bits). None of these require a 57,600bps DTE interface speed. Meeting these goals quickly is considered to be more important than expending, right now, the development funds to increase the speed of the entire modem by 50%, especially since there are few applications and systems that can really handle 5760 characters per second anyway, and only a relatively small amount of the data typically transferred is really compressible at 3.33-to-1 by V.42bis. -- Toby -- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer | Voice +1-404-840-9200 Telex 151243420 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. | Fax +1-404-447-0178 CIS 70271,404 P.O. Box 105203 | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon AT&T !tnixon Atlanta, Georgia 30348 USA | Internet tnixon%hayes@uunet.uu.net
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (06/28/91)
In a letter to All, Kurt Sletterdahl (kurt@pnet51.orb.mn.org ) wrote: >Pardon my dumbness, but why don't V.32bis modems have a DTE >interface speed of 57,600bps? I can think of two reasons right off the bat, and I'm not at all involved in the development of modems: (1) You'd be surprised how many systems either don't support high baud rates over async RS-232 ports or don't do so reliably. There are still some operating systems and/or serial cards that don't normally go higher than 19,200! I'm not sure how standard 57,600 bps is; it's certainly convenient for a normally configured 8250-type chip, but it's 3 times 19,200... an odd number (no pun intended) for an increase in RS-232 speed! (2) I advise all of my clients to send all data in compressed format, so V.42bis has little or no influence on the throughput. Since V.32bis has a raw data rate of 14,400 bps and LAP-M strips async framing, 19,200 bps is just fast enough to get maximum throughput on a compressed file. -- Geoffrey Welsh - Operator, Izot's Swamp BBS (FidoNet 1:221/171) root@zswamp.uucp or ..uunet!watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root 602-66 Mooregate Crescent, Kitchener, ON, N2M 5E6 Canada (519)741-9553 "He who claims to know everything can't possibly know much" -me
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (06/28/91)
In article <1991Jun27.195532.5461@telebit.com> mlikier@telebit.com (Marty Likier) writes: > DISCLAIMER: I am not a modem engineer! However 2 reasons come to my mind. > (1) V.42bis is probably the most intensive computational process within > the modem. And it is as simple as one vendor implementing V.42bis better > than another.(Or vice-a-versa) (2) the RS232 standard is spec'd at 19,200 > and for a modem interface speed of 57,600, it requires special line drivers > and receivers. I wonder when modem manufacturers will smarten up and lump a very high speed modem (v32bis w/ v42/v42bis) and put an ethernet connector on it (sort of like a T1600 + Netblazer) instead of a serial port. Then maybe we can see *real* throughput that isn't limited by serial line speeds. If a ethernet connection isn't good enough then perhaps SCSI? (what is that, 3~4 megabits a second == 3,000,000 bps). Either way, the serial line seems to be the major bottleneck in today's modems and today's computers. - jiro nakamura jiro@shaman.com -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting +1 607 277-1440 Voice/Fax/Data "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!"
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (06/29/91)
In article <4044.286b25d7@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: > especially since there are few applications and > systems that can really handle 5760 characters per second anyway, Umm.. LAN adaptors ? Yeah, that's the ticket -- BNC on the end of the modem to hack ethernet bridging, and leave the EIA-232 for control signals, what about that ? Given that PC ethernet cards only cost of the order of $100 nowadays, it can't be that expensive to put the same electronics into a modem, surely? (For the rabid andi-bridgers: I mightn't actually have anything other than just a router connected on the ethernet with a modem on it, ie: ethernet ethernet officenet<-------->router<-------->modem-->PSTN Of course, if the router is smart enough, it could have n modems on the end, and dial up only as many as it needs :-) > and only a relatively small amount of the data typically transferred > is really compressible at 3.33-to-1 by V.42bis. In which case of course, I say shoot the marketing men who sell modems by touting 4:1 :-) Thank goodness for more technical forums like this. Better make sure that the marketroids don't know you're here, Toby :-) But I bet that if I were NFS'ing mostly-zero-block databases across that diagram above, a lot of the zero blocks will compress really well :-) -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)