barton@holston.UUCP (barton) (07/06/89)
I'm considering adding the T1000 to our system and have a couple
of questions.
1. Is there a special program needed to dial the T1000, I've heard
reference to the dialTBIT program. Do I need this? Where do I get
it?
2. Since the T1000 is neither V.32 nor MNP supportive, should we
get the T2500 instead? Will we be left in the cold when a pre-
dominate 9600b standard emerges?
Any suggestions appreciated: Configuration: AT compatable running
SCO Xenix 2.2.1.
--
Barton A. Fisk | UUCP: {attctc,texbell,vector}!warble!holston!barton
PO Box 1781 | DOMAIN: barton@holston
Lake Charles, La. 70602 | ----------------------------------------
318-439-5984 | +++++ "Hal, open the pod bay doors" --- Davejbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) (07/07/89)
barton@holston.UUCP (barton) writes: >I'm considering adding the T1000 to our system and have a couple >of questions. >1. Is there a special program needed to dial the T1000, I've heard >reference to the dialTBIT program. Do I need this? Where do I get >it? Yes. Call SCO and ask for the Telebit diskette. Then you will have to reconfigure UUCP to call the dialTBIT program instead of the normal dialer. >2. Since the T1000 is neither V.32 nor MNP supportive, should we >get the T2500 instead? Will we be left in the cold when a pre- >dominate 9600b standard emerges? You will have to consider what you want to do. V.32 and MNP are not any faster then the T-1000. If all you want to do is to connect with other sites that also have Telebits then go with the T-1000. If you are going to be a dial-in site for many different systems, some of which will have MNP or V.32, then go with the T-2500. JB -- Jonathan Bayer Beware: The light at the end of the Intelligent Software Products, Inc. tunnel may be an oncoming dragon 500 Oakwood Ave. ...uunet!ispi!root Roselle Park, NJ 07204 (201) 245-5922 jbayer@ispi.UUCP
gaf@uucs1.UUCP (gaf) (07/08/89)
In article <665@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (Jonathan Bayer) writes: > If you are going >to be a dial-in site for many different systems, some of which will have >MNP or V.32, then go with the T-2500. My T1000 book says it supports MNP classes 1 - 4 in "slow" (non-PEP) mode. It's in a register which can only be gotten at in "enhanced" (over and above Hayes) command mode (by putting a tilde between the AT and your command). -- Guy Finney It's that feeling of deja-vu UUCS inc. Phoenix, Az all over again. ncar!noao!asuvax!hrc!uucs1!gaf zardoz!hrc!uucs1!gaf
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (04/28/91)
tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) writes: >"My question to the net is, what are the best modems around for the buck? >"Are we leaning in the right direction if we go with the T2500? >The T1000 is a good choice. All of Telebit's modems can handle the >standard 300/1200/2400bps protocols, so that takes care of your low >speed stuff. It does PEP at 9600bps, so you'll be able to talk to your >feed site as well. At $499 each for 20+ units, its a nice modem. T1000? Maybe for newsfeeds - but not for on-line usage. V.32bis is the best (and fastest) available - and the price is right in there with the $499 - except you'll get a DUPLEX modem at speeds up there around 1700 cps (with v.42bis).. Check into the USR v.32bis modems -- much faster throughput than the T1000, excellent support and state of the art.. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (04/29/91)
In article <1991Apr27.233044.22434@nstar.rn.com>, larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > T1000? Maybe for newsfeeds - but not for on-line usage. What's the application? If it's online stuff, you might well be wasting your money going over 2400 baud. If it's file transfers, I'd go with the TB (UUCP isn't the only protocol it spoofs). And if you have any question about the quality of the line, give the TB a try. It's much more reliable than any modem, at any speed, MNP included. It does have a problem with some echo cancellers, and it's a pain if you need to get to London (for some reason, it's a black hole for PEP). -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (04/30/91)
In <QW+ATBE@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >In article <1991Apr27.233044.22434@nstar.rn.com>, larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >> T1000? Maybe for newsfeeds - but not for on-line usage. >What's the application? If it's online stuff, you might well be wasting your >money going over 2400 baud. If it's file transfers, I'd go with the TB (UUCP >isn't the only protocol it spoofs). And if you have any question about the >quality of the line, give the TB a try. It's much more reliable than any modem, >at any speed, MNP included. Why do you say over 2400 is a waste for on-line. Here, where you will be waiting on screens to display is where I feel it makes the most difference. It certainly is nice to reduce your LD bills with a high speed modem for file transfers, but with the cost of 9600 bps modems nowadays why buy anything else? -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (04/30/91)
In article <1991Apr30.011012.12093@osh3.OSHA.GOV> chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > Why do you say over 2400 is a waste for on-line. Here, where you will > be waiting on screens to display is where I feel it makes the most > difference. Sounds like a user-interface problem to me. > It certainly is nice to reduce your LD bills with a high > speed modem for file transfers, but with the cost of 9600 bps modems > nowadays why buy anything else? Because you can get 18000 real bps over a good line with a TB+? Because you need to buy X00 modems and your budget is $X0,000? Because you have to make a choice between a 9600 baud modem and paying rent? Because the guy at the other end doesn't have one? Because you're talking UUCP or Kermit over the modem? Lots of good reasons. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
tim@dal.fsd.mot.com (Tim Dawson) (04/30/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) writes: >>"My question to the net is, what are the best modems around for the buck? >>"Are we leaning in the right direction if we go with the T2500? >>The T1000 is a good choice. All of Telebit's modems can handle the >>standard 300/1200/2400bps protocols, so that takes care of your low >T1000? Maybe for newsfeeds - but not for on-line usage. V.32bis >is the best (and fastest) available - and the price is right in there >with the $499 - except you'll get a DUPLEX modem at speeds up there >around 1700 cps (with v.42bis).. I guess this could all revolve around phone line quality and what you expect on interactive dialups. I routinely use my T1000 interactively into a bank of rackmount T2500's and have absolutely not gripes whatsoever as to throughput. No, it isn't true 9600, but I can't read that fast anyway so BFD! On news feeds with UUCP the T1000 will hands down blow away ANY V.32 I have ever seen, and this statement is made after one modem vendor spent 3 weeks trying to get V.32 to even come close and gave up! This entailed new firmware, setup changes, line testing etc. We also evaluated 3 other vendors and found no significant differences. The other problem I have with V.32 (and why I refuse to use it unless there is absolutely no other alternative) is that I have been unable to get them to hold connections for more than about 10 minutes on some of the long distance connections that I routinely make, and V.32 won't talk all of 100 feet through my PBX (Rolm), so if I want to use V.32 I gotta get special phone lines to boot. Telebits - no problem, tastes great, less filling! The bottom line here (to summarize my ramblings) is simple: V.32 works great under "ideal conditions", but stinks in my version of "reality". I have never seen PEP fail to anywhere under any conditions if the phone co can connect 'em. It may train down slower that full speed, but it WILL get you there! What I recommend? The Telebit T2500 defaulting to PEP. This way the folks who call in wanting V.32 connections can get 'em, news and mail travel PEP to minimize phone charges, and outward V.32 connections can be configured for sites that won't talk to anything else. Regarding the T1000, I think it is an excellent product and personally own one. I find the interactive throughput on my T1000 to actually be faster than on the TB+ ot T2500. -- ================================================================================ Tim Dawson (tim@dal.fsd.mot.com) Unix Systems and Networking Administrator Motorola Computer Systems - MIS Bellnet: (214)-888-2231 1701 Valley View Lane, Farmers Branch TX. 75234
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/01/91)
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >In <QW+ATBE@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >>In article <1991Apr27.233044.22434@nstar.rn.com>, larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>> T1000? Maybe for newsfeeds - but not for on-line usage. >>What's the application? If it's online stuff, you might well be wasting your >>money going over 2400 baud. If it's file transfers, I'd go with the TB (UUCP >>isn't the only protocol it spoofs). And if you have any question about the >>quality of the line, give the TB a try. It's much more reliable than any modem, >>at any speed, MNP included. >Why do you say over 2400 is a waste for on-line. Here, where you will >be waiting on screens to display is where I feel it makes the most >difference. It certainly is nice to reduce your LD bills with a high >speed modem for file transfers, but with the cost of 9600 bps modems >nowadays why buy anything else? I think the author was making mention that the T1000 for online use isn't much better than a 2400 baud modem - which is about the truth. For on-line, V.32bis is the latest standard, and Telebit hasn't even jumped on the v.32bis bandwagon as of yet. -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/01/91)
tim@dal.fsd.mot.com (Tim Dawson) writes: >larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) writes: >I guess this could all revolve around phone line quality and what you >expect on interactive dialups. I routinely use my T1000 interactively into >a bank of rackmount T2500's and have absolutely not gripes whatsoever as >to throughput. No, it isn't true 9600, but I can't read that fast anyway >so BFD! On news feeds with UUCP the T1000 will hands down blow away ANY >V.32 I have ever seen, and this statement is made after one modem vendor ahh - not v.32bis - no way. v.32bis will blow the socks of a T1000 plus v.32bis is much better for interactive applications (like running X over a slip connection). Try running a T1000 over a SLIP connection - a 2400 baud modem will work just as good as the T1000. >spent 3 weeks trying to get V.32 to even come close and gave up! This entailed >new firmware, setup changes, line testing etc. We also evaluated 3 other >vendors and found no significant differences. I don't know what you get with the T1000 doing uucp, but we are getting around 1050 cps doing uucp for v.32, and around 1650 doing v.32bis --- Of course the T2000 runs around 1420 cps -- my understanding the T1000 will do around 850 at best - in which case a v.32bis is a much better selection. >The other problem I have with V.32 (and why I refuse to use it unless there >is absolutely no other alternative) is that I have been unable to get >them to hold connections for more than about 10 minutes on some of the long >distance connections that I routinely make, and V.32 won't talk all of 100 >feet through my PBX (Rolm), so if I want to use V.32 I gotta get special >phone lines to boot. Telebits - no problem, tastes great, less filling! we are now feeding several sites via both v.32 and v.32bis without problems - all of which are long distance... Maybe you are using poor quality v.32 modems? With the US Robotics v.32bis modems - we haven't a problem... >V.32 works great under "ideal conditions", but stinks in my version of >"reality". maybe with some vendor's modems - but not with the USR modems -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (05/01/91)
In <.O.AKP9@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <1991Apr30.011012.12093@osh3.OSHA.GOV> chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >> Why do you say over 2400 is a waste for on-line. Here, where you will >> be waiting on screens to display is where I feel it makes the most >> difference. >Sounds like a user-interface problem to me. Well, while reading this news I had to wait for the screen to fill. This is not a user interface problem. There was just a screen full of data (your message) to display. What can a program do about that? >> It certainly is nice to reduce your LD bills with a high >> speed modem for file transfers, but with the cost of 9600 bps modems >> nowadays why buy anything else? >Because you can get 18000 real bps over a good line with a TB+? Because >you need to buy X00 modems and your budget is $X0,000? Because you have >to make a choice between a 9600 baud modem and paying rent? Because the >guy at the other end doesn't have one? Because you're talking UUCP or >Kermit over the modem? Lots of good reasons. Well, I was not disputing the value of a TB+. After all, I'm using a T2500 right now. I was disputing the statement that, if the use was interactive that "a 2400 bps modem was good enough". Why buy a 2400 nowadays was my statement. As far as 18000 real bps, I still have yet to see it. I haven't even gotten close yet. As for budget and paying rent, that's another good reason not to buy a 2400 bps modem. Where "the guy at the other end not having one" is concerned, that's a good reason to stick with the V.32 and V.42 (bis) modems (I know, Telebits have this). I find that PEP is not everywhere. This also goes for the protocol spoofing. I've never found that to be a VERY compelling performance boost either. Good, but not great. Are you actually advocating the purchase of a 2400 bps? Or are we in agreement? -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov
dms@tiger.ai.mit.edu (David M. Siegel) (05/01/91)
I too uses Telebits. One problem with PEP, though, is that it doesn't work very well with SLIP or PPP. For those applications, V.32 is a better protocol to use. -Dave
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (05/01/91)
In article <1991May01.024430.17081@osh3.OSHA.GOV>, chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > Well, while reading this news I had to wait for the screen to fill. > This is not a user interface problem. There was just a screen full of > data (your message) to display. What can a program do about that? 2400 baud is faster than I can read, and probably faster than you can read too unless you're some kind of prodigy. If the user interface does not clear the screen, but instead scrolls text on from the bottom, then you will find occasional pauses quite necessary at any speed over about 300 baud. > As for budget and paying rent, that's another good reason not to buy a > 2400 bps modem. At $75 per, it's 1/10th the cost of a 9600 baud modem and within the range of disposable income for a lot of people. See the parallel discussion in comp.misc about throwing out old terminals. For that matter I make quite a bit, but there is no way I could justify a 9600 baud modem for interactive use. > Where "the guy at the other end not having one" is concerned, that's a > good reason to stick with the V.32 and V.42 (bis) modems (I know, > Telebits have this). That depends on whether the guy at the other end is a BBS or a UNIX box. For UNIX systems, Telebits *are* everywhere. > Are you actually advocating the purchase of a 2400 bps? For what? Under what circumstances? For most cases where you're doing interactive stuff (and not via PC-remote or PPP, OK?) I would say yes. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/02/91)
Besides, with the exponentially increasing size of the typical download file, BBS users (and comp.binaries.* readers!) will have good reason to prefer 9600 bps modems. OK, so they're not a household item yet... but for real enthusiasts, they definitely belong on the list of things to be considered. -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.uucp | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553 The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. -- me
tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May01.020407.1289@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
"
"I think the author was making mention that the T1000 for online
"use isn't much better than a 2400 baud modem - which is about the
"truth. For on-line, V.32bis is the latest standard, and Telebit
"hasn't even jumped on the v.32bis bandwagon as of yet.
"
"--
No it isn't the truth. I regularily get 720cps+ using a T1000 to connect
to a XENIX box in Ohio (NCOAST). This is a terminal session, not a UUCP
session. There is a *HECK* of a lot of difference!!
I'm sitting back here thinking of my days at Wayne State University here
in Detroit when we all lined up for access to terminals hardwired to
the Merit Network. They ran at 9600 bps, required a $4000 SCP and a
leased line that cost $$$/month. Now, with a T1000 (or TB+/T2500,etc)
I can call the same network for 8.2c/call regardless of time online.
There is distance of only 4 years between these events. Amazing.
--
Michigan Network Systems Technical Support Division
1-800-736-5984 BBS: +1 313 343 0800 E-MAIL: tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM
TELEBIT DIGIBOARD WESTERN DIGITAL 3COM SCO INTERACTIVE UNIX
MICROPOLIS ADAPTECtech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) (05/02/91)
In article <1991May01.021126.1382@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
"
"ahh - not v.32bis - no way. v.32bis will blow the socks of a
"T1000 plus v.32bis is much better for interactive applications (like
"running X over a slip connection). Try running a T1000 over a SLIP
"connection - a 2400 baud modem will work just as good as the T1000.
"
Of course, but most V.32bis modems cost more than the T1000. As for SLIP,
A V.32 with V.42/V.42bis works better. PSINet uses such beasties for their
access and they seem to be happy with the outcome.
"I don't know what you get with the T1000 doing uucp, but we are getting
"around 1050 cps doing uucp for v.32, and around 1650 doing v.32bis ---
"
With or without V.42bis?? Also, is the data compressed already or not.
PEP (19.2) will many times do better than V.32 with V.42bis because,
although V.42bis can get you up to 4:1 compression (ie: 38,400), most
news is already compressed. If you're gonna send stuff uncompressed,
then V.32/V.42bis will usually outdo PEP.
"Of course the T2000 runs around 1420 cps -- my understanding the T1000 will
"do around 850 at best - in which case a v.32bis is a much better selection.
"
You mean the T2500, don't you? (The T2000 is no longer made. Its an SDLC
modem). RE: Speeds: All depends on the phone line quality. Remember, PEP
has the ability to dynamically upshift/downshift. So does V.32bis.
"we are now feeding several sites via both v.32 and v.32bis without problems -
"all of which are long distance... Maybe you are using poor quality v.32
"modems? With the US Robotics v.32bis modems - we haven't a problem...
"
There were some problems with echo-cancellation and V.32. Problem is
the quality of your V.32 implimentation.
--
Michigan Network Systems Technical Support Division
1-800-736-5984 BBS: +1 313 343 0800 E-MAIL: tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM
TELEBIT DIGIBOARD WESTERN DIGITAL 3COM SCO INTERACTIVE UNIX
MICROPOLIS ADAPTEClarry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/02/91)
tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) writes: >"Of course the T2000 runs around 1420 cps -- my understanding the T1000 will >"do around 850 at best - in which case a v.32bis is a much better selection. >" >You mean the T2500, don't you? (The T2000 is no longer made. Its an SDLC >modem). RE: Speeds: All depends on the phone line quality. Remember, PEP >has the ability to dynamically upshift/downshift. So does V.32bis. we have T2000 and Telebit Trailblazers here - which are about the same (except SDLC is an option for the T2000). >"we are now feeding several sites via both v.32 and v.32bis without problems - >"all of which are long distance... Maybe you are using poor quality v.32 >"modems? With the US Robotics v.32bis modems - we haven't a problem... >There were some problems with echo-cancellation and V.32. Problem is >the quality of your V.32 implimentation. v.32bis modems can be had for around $600 - and look for the prices to come down within the next couple of months. Anyone looking into v.32 should wait and get 50% greater throughput with v.32bis (if they can wait) -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) (05/02/91)
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: > 2400 baud is faster than I can read, and probably faster than you can read > too unless you're some kind of prodigy. I disagree. Humans can read well in excess of V.32bis speeds -- what do you think speed reading is? The problem is that if the text is being displayed at 2400 or below, it makes it very difficult to make use of speed reading techniques, which require looking at blocks of text, rather than reading one word at a time. If the text is trickling through at 2400 or below, the text blocks are continually changing in shape, so most brains will switch from block mode to serial mode reading, which is *much* slower. Roll on ethernet speed dialups, I say :-) -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@robobar.co.uk> +44 81 991 1142 (O) +44 71 229 7741 (H)
pete@Octopus.COM (Pete Holzmann) (05/03/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) writes: > >>"all of which are long distance... Maybe you are using poor quality v.32 >>"modems? With the US Robotics v.32bis modems - we haven't a problem... > >>There were some problems with echo-cancellation and V.32. Problem is >>the quality of your V.32 implimentation. > >v.32bis modems can be had for around $600 - and look for the prices to >come down within the next couple of months. Anyone looking into v.32 >should wait and get 50% greater throughput with v.32bis (if they can wait) Anyone who has to deal with truly *poor quality* telephone lines (i.e. international lines, esp. with multiple satellite hops, etc.) should be very careful before buying a V.32/V.32bis solution. We're getting ready to publish the results of real world experiments comparing PEP, V.32 and V.32bis in true bad-line circumstances. Looks like PEP still wins (and I was hoping V.32bis would!) I don't have numbers or details available now, so I'm not particularly able to defend this statement. I hope to be able to say more within a month. Pete -- Peter Holzmann, Octopus Enterprises |(if you're a techie Christian & are 19611 La Mar Ct., Cupertino, CA 95014 |interested in helping w/ the Great UUCP: {hpda,pyramid}!octopus!pete |Commission, email dsa-contact@octopus) Voice: 408/996-7746;FAX=408/985-0859
ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) (05/03/91)
In article <DL=ASHH@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: : In article <1991May01.024430.17081@osh3.OSHA.GOV>, chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: : > Well, while reading this news I had to wait for the screen to fill. : > This is not a user interface problem. There was just a screen full of : > data (your message) to display. What can a program do about that? : 2400 baud is faster than I can read, and probably faster than you can read : too unless you're some kind of prodigy. I spell check at 4800 baud, read at 9600, and scan faster than 19.2K. I do not think I am all that special, I just practice going faster and faster. The brain is able to adapt to most speeds. The worst case was something I heard from a school system administrator back about 1981: "Why would anyone want to go faster than 300 baud? No one in the world can read that fast". -- Kenneth Ng Please reply to ken@hertz.njit.edu until this machine properly recieves mail. "No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) (05/03/91)
In article <1991May2.134341.11341@robobar.co.uk>, ronald@robobar.co.uk (Ronald S H Khoo) writes: > peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: > > 2400 baud is faster than I can read, and probably faster than you can read > > too unless you're some kind of prodigy. > I disagree. Humans can read well in excess of V.32bis speeds -- what > do you think speed reading is? A trick for skimming material, making use of redundancy in English. OK, if you're a speed-reader a 9600 baud modem might be useful. But how many people like that are there? And given that we're talking about computer text in the first place, perhaps some preprocessing could remove some of that redundancy? I know there are programs that remove noise words simplify spllng rmvng vwls ft mr txt scrn. Prhps cld b spd rdng 90s. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) (05/04/91)
In article <1991May2.215929.19449@Octopus.COM> pete@octopus.COM (Pete Holzmann) writes:
"
"Anyone who has to deal with truly *poor quality* telephone lines (i.e.
"international lines, esp. with multiple satellite hops, etc.) should be
"very careful before buying a V.32/V.32bis solution. We're getting ready
"to publish the results of real world experiments comparing PEP, V.32 and
"V.32bis in true bad-line circumstances. Looks like PEP still wins (and
"I was hoping V.32bis would!) I don't have numbers or details available
"now, so I'm not particularly able to defend this statement. I hope to
"be able to say more within a month.
"
"Pete
"
Wait until the "new PEP" comes out. Rumors are that it will be ~28kbps
BEFORE compression.
--
Michigan Network Systems Technical Support Division
1-800-736-5984 BBS: +1 313 343 0800 E-MAIL: tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM
TELEBIT DIGIBOARD WESTERN DIGITAL 3COM SCO INTERACTIVE UNIX
MICROPOLIS ADAPTECtony@jassys.UUCP (Tony Holden) (05/05/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > I don't know what you get with the T1000 doing uucp, but we are getting > around 1050 cps doing uucp for v.32 1050cps!! ACK! I'm only getting ~870. Come on, how are you getting rates that are that high? Before v.32 I was getting 218cps on a 2400b modem. By increasing the baud rate by 4 I get 872cps. What gives? Speaking of v.32 and the biz modes... I've tried v.42biz and didn't get anything worth talking about. Is v.42biz any good for uucp? -- Tony Holden live on the edge, tony@jassys Bank in Texas
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/06/91)
In a letter to All, Tony Holden (tony@jassys.UUCP ) wrote: >1050cps!! ACK! I'm only getting ~870. Come on, how are >you getting >rates that are that high? Before v.32 I was getting 218cps >on a 2400b >modem. By increasing the baud rate by 4 I get 872cps. >What gives? Please remember that V.32 with MNP class 4 or LAP-M (V.42) enabled is *not* operating on a fundamental speed of 9600 bps but rather, thanks to the stripping of start & stop bits by the protocols, approaching an effective speed of (9600/8=)1200 CPS (minus some protocol overhead, natch). >Speaking of v.32 and the biz modes... I've tried v.42biz >and didn't get anything worth talking about. >Is v.42biz any good for uucp? V.42bis is *data compression*. If your data is already compressed (e.g. compressed newsbatches), you won't benefit from V.42bis. -- 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
tim@dal.fsd.mot.com (Tim Dawson) (05/07/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >tim@dal.fsd.mot.com (Tim Dawson) writes: >>larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>>tech@mich-ns.Michigan.COM (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) writes: >>I guess this could all revolve around phone line quality and what you >>expect on interactive dialups. I routinely use my T1000 interactively into >>a bank of rackmount T2500's and have absolutely not gripes whatsoever as >>to throughput. No, it isn't true 9600, but I can't read that fast anyway >>so BFD! On news feeds with UUCP the T1000 will hands down blow away ANY >>V.32 I have ever seen, and this statement is made after one modem vendor >ahh - not v.32bis - no way. v.32bis will blow the socks of a >T1000 plus v.32bis is much better for interactive applications (like >running X over a slip connection). Try running a T1000 over a SLIP >connection - a 2400 baud modem will work just as good as the T1000. >>spent 3 weeks trying to get V.32 to even come close and gave up! This entailed >>new firmware, setup changes, line testing etc. We also evaluated 3 other >>vendors and found no significant differences. >I don't know what you get with the T1000 doing uucp, but we are getting >around 1050 cps doing uucp for v.32, and around 1650 doing v.32bis --- I get around 850 - 900 with the T1000, and more like 1800 with the T2500's talking to other PEP sites with > T1000 PEP modems. >Of course the T2000 runs around 1420 cps -- my understanding the T1000 will >do around 850 at best - in which case a v.32bis is a much better selection. But can you get V.32bis for $550?????? >>The other problem I have with V.32 (and why I refuse to use it unless there >>is absolutely no other alternative) is that I have been unable to get >>them to hold connections for more than about 10 minutes on some of the long >>distance connections that I routinely make, and V.32 won't talk all of 100 >>feet through my PBX (Rolm), so if I want to use V.32 I gotta get special >>phone lines to boot. Telebits - no problem, tastes great, less filling! >we are now feeding several sites via both v.32 and v.32bis without problems - >all of which are long distance... Maybe you are using poor quality v.32 >modems? With the US Robotics v.32bis modems - we haven't a problem... >>V.32 works great under "ideal conditions", but stinks in my version of >>"reality". >maybe with some vendor's modems - but not with the USR modems USR Codex Telebit's V.32 Implementation in the T2500 UDS . . . . The all fail. The problem is simply this: V.32 knows 9600 and 4800 baud - - - - PERIOD! If you train down to 4800 and then retrain again and 4800 for some reason is not clean (line hit, etc) V.32 standard says to DISCONNECT - they are incapable of continuing from this point, and also cannot train back up to 9600 once fallback has occured. This is not a problem with a vendor, this is a problem with a protocol - V.32 does not have the same kine of robust error recovery and correction as PEP. Also 9600 -> 4800 is a pretty huge step to fallback for a line problem when compared to PEP's 100 baud (or so) increments. Even if throughput on V.32bis is close or even equal to PEP, I still will opt for PEP. Why??? As I previously stated, my experience with V.32 is so bad on holding lines, that I have seen occasions where it took up to 8 HOURS to transfer a 1 Meg file - not because the connection was slow (stats looked fine, actually) but the damn V.32 just LOVED to drop the connection at random, inevitably 80+ percent of the way through the transfer. I ended up with about 6 hours worth of phone charges to haul 1 Meg. UGH! At least with the PEP stuff I can be confident that the file will get there the first tim! >-- > Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 > HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis > regional UUCP mapping coordinator > {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry} -- ================================================================================ Tim Dawson (tim@dal.fsd.mot.com) Unix Systems and Networking Administrator Motorola Computer Systems - MIS Bellnet: (214)-888-2231 1701 Valley View Lane, Farmers Branch TX. 75234
braun@dri.com (Kral) (05/07/91)
In article <5@jassys.UUCP> tony@jassys.UUCP (Tony Holden) writes: > >1050cps!! ACK! I'm only getting ~870. Come on, how are you getting >rates that are that high? Before v.32 I was getting 218cps on a 2400b >modem. By increasing the baud rate by 4 I get 872cps. > >What gives? We've had the same problem here. I have recently discovered that we seem to still be talking at 9.6 to the telebit, even though the ttys file entry is set for 19.2 and we thought we had setup the modem to talk 19.2 out the interface. But LOGFILE entries show that connections only work if we have both a 19200 and a 9600 entry in the L.sys file, and if the 9600 entry is second, it only works on the second try; so I am assuming that it is always failing at 19200, and thus our throughput is limited by the interface speed (9600). Once we get a moment to figure out what's wrong, we should be able to get higher throughputs. -- kral * 408/647-6112 * ...!uunet!drivax!braun * braun@dri.com Whoever is calm and sensible is insane -- Rumi
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) (05/07/91)
In article <5@jassys.UUCP> tony@jassys.UUCP (Tony Holden) writes: > 1050cps!! ACK! I'm only getting ~870. Come on, how are you getting > rates that are that high? Before v.32 I was getting 218cps on a 2400b > modem. By increasing the baud rate by 4 I get 872cps. > > What gives? Are you communicating with UUNET? Then maybe it's because UUNET's computers are terribly bogged down and can't pump 1000+ characters to their modems. :-( Did you notice a jump of about 100 cps when they upgraded? Now it seems they have added even more nodes and are even more bogged down. :-( x 3 - jiro nakamura jiro@shaman.com ps. I don't know about the other providers. Larry says he can keep a high throughput 'cos he limits the number of nodes he serves. I don't know about PSI. pps. Standard disclaimers. I have a UUNET link via a T2500. That's about it. -- Jiro Nakamura jiro@shaman.com Shaman Consulting (607) 253-0687 VOICE "Bring your dead, dying shamans here!" (607) 253-7809 FAX/Modem
shihsun@glasses.Princeton.EDU (Shih-ping S Sun) (05/07/91)
In article <Z81BE53@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >> I disagree. Humans can read well in excess of V.32bis speeds -- what >> do you think speed reading is? > >A trick for skimming material, making use of redundancy in English. > >OK, if you're a speed-reader a 9600 baud modem might be useful. But how >many people like that are there? You have to keep in mind also that many people get high speed modems primarily for transfers (even PD transfers). Also, they see a lot of use for network connections (I'm thinking specifically of WWIVnet, of which I'm a member. I imagine they get use all over Usenet also) >there are programs that remove noise words simplify spllng rmvng vwls >ft mr txt scrn. Prhps cld b spd rdng 90s. heh, you should read Mark Twain's essay on how we could improve the English language. Really funny. S. Spencer Sun '94
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/07/91)
In article <9174@idunno.Princeton.EDU> shihsun@glasses.Princeton.EDU (Shih-ping S Sun) writes: > You have to keep in mind also that many people get high speed modems > primarily for transfers (even PD transfers). I agree. File transfers are a different matter. I'm talking here of buying modems primarily for interactive use. Unless you're an exceptional individual or your user interface programs are poorly designed, >2400 doesn't buy enough to make the O(10x) higher price worthwhile. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' peter@ferranti.com +1 713 274 5180. 'U` "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/08/91)
but try using PEP for a SLIP connection - it is the pits -
and for interactive use - v.32 is the winner (except for international
connections - in which case I agree the PEP has a higher chance of holding
the connection)
and v.32bis supports fallback and forwarding (at least on the USR
v.32bis modems - the modem will go 14.4-12.0-9.6-4.8 and back as
the line gets better)
--
Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391
HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis
regional UUCP mapping coordinator
{larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/08/91)
jiro@shaman.com (Jiro Nakamura) writes: > Are you communicating with UUNET? Then maybe it's because UUNET's computers >are terribly bogged down and can't pump 1000+ characters to their modems. :-( >Did you notice a jump of about 100 cps when they upgraded? Now it seems they >have added even more nodes and are even more bogged down. :-( x 3 we (nstar) have picked up several sites that were previously (or still are) connected with uunet. throughput with uunet runs around 900-1000 cps (so we've been told) while throughput here runs as high as 1400 cps (these are all PEP speeds).. btw - we just installed another box - and can feed *more* sites! -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
brian@telebit.com (Brian Lloyd) (05/08/91)
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >but try using PEP for a SLIP connection - it is the pits - Actually, PEP works pretty well with SLIP or PPP that supports Van Jacobson IP/TCP header compression. The header compression keeps the length of interactive packets (TELNET, rlogin) below the threshold where PEP switches to large packets. This makes interactive activity quite palatable. This has turned out to be a boon to people using the NetBlazer and a PEP modem (TB+, T1000, or T2500) for ad-hoc international IP connections. -- Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Telebit Corporation Network Systems Architect 1315 Chesapeake Terrace brian@napa.telebit.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1100 voice (408) 745-3103 FAX (408) 734-3333
rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May3.013332.7385@sugra.uucp> ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes: >In article <DL=ASHH@xds13.ferranti.com>, peter@ficc.ferranti.com (peter da silva) writes: >: In article <1991May01.024430.17081@osh3.OSHA.GOV>, chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >: > Well, while reading this news I had to wait for the screen to fill. >: > This is not a user interface problem. There was just a screen full of >: > data (your message) to display. What can a program do about that? >: 2400 baud is faster than I can read, and probably faster than you can read >: too unless you're some kind of prodigy. > >I spell check at 4800 baud, read at 9600, and scan faster than 19.2K. I >do not think I am all that special, I just practice going faster and faster. >The brain is able to adapt to most speeds. I was thinking about this last night, as I was considering that it was taking me about 4-5 times longer to read messages on a 2400bps MNP 5 connection than it does when I do it via ethernet at work. I thought of a couple reasons why... * Quickscan.. I can usually tell immediately after a message starts appearing whether or not I'm interested. On 2400 I have to wait a lot longer to junk it. * Continuity - I can scan a static screen a lot faster than I can one which is moving. * Headers - there's about 8+ lines of header information up there that for most messages I don't really care about, but which takes up quite a bit of time at 2400 bps. * .signatures... some scum (usually on the debate bases) have 12-14, even full screen sigs! This is a total waste, as the more extremist they are the larger their sigs get, and these are usually the ones you want to skip. I don't want to global kill them, because it's very amusing sometimes. Anyways, .sigs eat up time. * Editing... if you want to use vi to edit your replies and cut down the quoted text, its a lot slower at 2400. -- Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks. | Ron Dippold
larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) (05/09/91)
brian@telebit.com (Brian Lloyd) writes: >larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: >>but try using PEP for a SLIP connection - it is the pits - >Actually, PEP works pretty well with SLIP or PPP that supports Van >Jacobson IP/TCP header compression. The header compression keeps the >length of interactive packets (TELNET, rlogin) below the threshold >where PEP switches to large packets. This makes interactive activity >quite palatable. This has turned out to be a boon to people using the >NetBlazer and a PEP modem (TB+, T1000, or T2500) for ad-hoc >international IP connections. we've tried it with traditional slip - and talk about slow -- throughput was about 10% slower than with a 2400 baud modem! v.32bis really brought the throughput up -- Larry Snyder, NSTAR Public Access Unix 219-289-0287/317-251-7391 HST/PEP/V.32/v.32bis/v.42bis regional UUCP mapping coordinator {larry@nstar.rn.com, ..!uunet!nstar.rn.com!larry}
tony@jassys.UUCP (Tony Holden) (05/09/91)
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > In a letter to All, Tony Holden (tony@jassys.UUCP ) wrote: > >1050cps!! ACK! I'm only getting ~870. > > Please remember that V.32 with MNP class 4 or LAP-M (V.42) enabled is *not* > operating on a fundamental speed of 9600 bps but rather, thanks to the > stripping of start & stop bits by the protocols, approaching an effective > speed of (9600/8=)1200 CPS (minus some protocol overhead, natch). I'm setup right now as a straight v.32 modem. No mnp or lap modes enabled (at least that's what the manual sez). Are you saying that by enabling mnp4 (not 5) will jump things up to ~1200cps? Damm, were did I put that manual ;-) For those others that have replied. At this moment I have tried 2 different v.32 modems, Intel and Practical Perf's 9600. Both are getting the same rates. I only have 2 sites that can talk v.32. My main feed, which has a TB2500, and work. My work machine is a RS/6000. UUCP on the 6000 is broke and I can only get 580cps out of it. -- Tony Holden live on the edge, tony@jassys Bank in Texas
mje@mje99.UUCP (Mark J Elkins) (05/09/91)
In article <5@jassys.UUCP> tony@jassys.UUCP (Tony Holden) writes: >larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: > >> I don't know what you get with the T1000 doing uucp, but we are getting >> around 1050 cps doing uucp for v.32 > > >1050cps!! ACK! I'm only getting ~870. Come on, how are you getting >rates that are that high? Before v.32 I was getting 218cps on a 2400b >modem. By increasing the baud rate by 4 I get 872cps. 870cps (between 850 & 900) is what you get using v32 on a clean line with nothing else (eg V42bis or MNP5). If you are transmitting compressed data files then you are really passing through about twice this data rate. If you switch on MNP5 and transmit uncompress data then you get to throughputs of about 1100cps in the real (noise) world. -- . . ___. .__ Olivetti Systems & Networks, Unix Support - Africa /| /| / /__ UUCP: {uunet,olgb1,olnl1}!olsa99!mje (Mark Elkins) / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS mje@olsa99.UUCP (Postmaster) Tel: +27 11 339 9093
peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/09/91)
In article <1991May8.185155.2818@qualcomm.com> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > * Quickscan.. I can usually tell immediately after a message starts appearing > whether or not I'm interested. On 2400 I have to wait a lot longer to > junk it. Use "vnews" or another reader that allows hotkeys. > * Continuity - I can scan a static screen a lot faster than I can one which > is moving. Then use "vnews", or set your terminal to smooth scroll. I find the opposite to be true (so Emacs drives me up the wall with its page flipping). > * Headers - there's about 8+ lines of header information up there that for > most messages I don't really care about, but which takes up quite a bit of > time at 2400 bps. Software problem. Use a newsreader that hides that stuff. > * .signatures... some scum (usually on the debate bases) have 12-14, even > full screen sigs! See above. User interface problem. > * Editing... if you want to use vi to edit your replies and cut down the > quoted text, its a lot slower at 2400. Let me let you in on a secret: when VI was designed at Berkeley the *fast* terminals were running at 1200 and 2400 baud. Most terminals were 110 or 300 baud. VI is *designed* for slow terminals, and is quite usable on them if you set it up right. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (05/11/91)
In a letter to All, Tony Holden (tony@jassys.UUCP ) wrote: >I'm setup right now as a straight v.32 modem. No mnp or lap >modes enabled (at least that's what the manual sez). >Are you saying that by enabling mnp4 (not 5) will jump >things up to ~1200cps? Damm, were did I put that manual ;-) They *can* do, depending on a lot of things (including the protocol used, the buffering settings of the modems & computers, etc.) I'm not sure why someone would disable error correction. There may be good reasons, but I'm inclined to say that a modem which is programmed to correct errors should be permitted to do so. I don't want noise on my line and, if the choice is between letting the modem do it and adding the job to the host computer, I'm willing to leave it to the modem. If that's not convincing, the fact that error correcting protocols (LAP-M and MNP if it's operating on a class 3 base protocol) will strip start & stop bits and boost performance that way. -- 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
rockwell@socrates.umd.edu (Raul Rockwell) (05/13/91)
Geoffrey Welsh:
I'm not sure why someone would disable error correction. There
may be good reasons, but I'm inclined to say that a modem which is
programmed to correct errors should be permitted to do so. I don't
want noise on my line and, if the choice is between letting the
modem do it and adding the job to the host computer, I'm willing to
leave it to the modem.
Well, I know why.
There are modem setups out there that will spoof an error correcting
modem (by connecting in a way that makes it appear error correction is
enabled, and then hanging the connection because the protocol is not
really being supported).
If you want to talk to one of those you have to disable error
correction.
Raul Rockwellpeter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) (05/13/91)
In article <42.282CCC07@zswamp.uucp> root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > I'm not sure why someone would disable error correction. There may be good > reasons, but I'm inclined to say that a modem which is programmed to correct > errors should be permitted to do so. Well, I've had some problems with modems with MNP enabled, to the point where I generally don't turn it on. I've been typing away, for example, and all of a sudden the modem (an Everex) would lock up and quit talking. The TR light would be slowly blinking, and the only way out of this condition was to hang up and try again. Only happened with MNP enabled, and on more than one modem at the other end. Always to the same exchange, though, so I suspect it was something there causing the problem. -- Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180; Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012; `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"
wtm@uhura.neoucom.EDU (Bill Mayhew) (05/14/91)
Here is another reason to disable modem-based error correction. I've had instances where MNP4 modems were besieged by a telco trunk line that had a framing error due to clock sync-slip. While there was no audible glitch on the line, it caused a regular phalanx of "~r" to march across the screen at approximately 1 second intervals at 1200 baud. Unfortunately, the distant site was equipped with a 1200 baud modem, so I had little choice in the matter. Apparently their end was unable for some unknown reason to be able to accept smaller than the default MNP packet size (though I tried on my end to use short packets). The result was that virtually every packet was guaranteed of receiving a noise hit, and thus the modems locked up with the very first packet being transmitted over and over again ad nausium. In this case, the uucp g protocol could have gotten that data through (and did). It seemed that every time I dialed that particular site I got the same horrible trunk connection from HELL. I tried to talk to the telco about the problem but was stonewalled. It was just about impossible to talk to an engineer. When I finally did get someone with some technical knowledge I (admittedly politely) told that if the line were could enough to carry an aural connection then the line was good enough; period, end of coversation. Both of our sites eventaully got TB+ modems which cirumvented the problem with the noisy trunk. I was quite surprised that the connection routinely carried 1350 cps or faster connections _without_ compression enabled. The reduction in connection time allowed the cost of the modems to be recouperated in about three months time. Bill -- Bill Mayhew NEOUCOM Computer Services Department Rootstown, OH 44272-9995 USA phone: 216-325-2511 wtm@uhura.neoucom.edu ....!uunet!aablue!neoucom!wtm via internet: (140.220.001.001)