al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Al Peterman) (03/02/91)
I just saw this ad, which is PART of file (and the shortest part), about
what appears to be yet another 9600 baud protocol. Note I do not use,
advocate or even like the idea of another high speed modem protocol, nor
do I know anything about this modem except what this file reveals:
CompuCom Corporation announces the SpeedModem(tm) Champ(tm) 9600 bps modem at
the incredibly low price of $169. The Champ's raw speed is 300-9600 bps and it
features data compression throughput up to 38,400 bps! The Champ is comparable
in performance to v.32/v.42bis modems. These modems typically cost $500+ on the
low end and range well above $1000. The Champ also has a big brother with
send/receive fax capability and voice mail upgrade. It provides total
communications capability on one very economical card. It costs only $279;
there is nothing like it at any cost.
Although 9600 bps modems have been available for a number of years, only a few
percent of the modems in use today operate at this speed. Their cost is
prohibitive to the average PC user. CompuCom has changed that. They are
making high speed modems affordable to ALL, not just the few percent who can
afford them. The SpeedModem is a technology-price breakthrough. It is like
buying a 2400 bps modem and getting 9600 bps FREE! Or, as one customer said,
"buying a Ford and getting Ferrari performance". Bob Mahoney of EXEC PC sums
it up:
"The CompuCom SpeedModem provides all the utility of a high quality
2400bps MNP5 modem, but it gives 9600bps in the package. With that it
is priced below most modems that offer only the 2400bps (MNP) speed...
Instead of buying a modem like that for $169, why don't they buy a
real 9600bps that also does a good job at 2400bps MNP5? The
SpeedModem is such a modem."
The SpeedModem is compatible with all modems up through 2400 bps and MNP5. At
9600 bps or higher it is similar to other popular modems (e.g. HST); it will
communicate only with one of its own kind. However, at costs competitive with
2400 bps modems it's still big plus, there isn't a downside. (See compatibility
and cost.) As a general purpose modem it provides more bang for the buck than
anything else. The SpeedModem is by far the most cost effective choice for high
speed remote computer operation or communications within organizations. It is
also catching on in among Bulletin Board Systems, BBS.
BBS System Operators (sysops) strive to achieve the broadest possible
constituency for their service. Thus many multiline BBSs support more than one
high speed modem type. Even so, 90% of their users still call in at 2400 bps.
They are stuck at 2400 because they can't afford high speed modems. Sysops are
beginning to realize that the SpeedModem is the only opportunity for most of
their users to join the ranks of the high speed Top Guns. Thus they are adding
it to their service. Although the SpeedModem has been in production only a
short time, over 200 BBSs are online including EXEC PC, the largest direct
connect BBS in the US. They have over 160 incoming phone lines. Presently
BBSs in more than 20 countries support the SpeedModem.
One nationwide communications network (now in formation) has chosen the
SpeedModem as their primary modem. They intend to provide long distance
communications for the SpeedModem at rates of only a fraction of conventional
long distance rates. They feel the SpeedModem will help them to achieve a
large customer base. The SpeedModem is unique; it is an unprecedented
communications value. It will become the de facto AFFORDABLE STANDARD for high
speed modem communications.
Compatibility and Cost
CompuCom engineers were determined to design a low cost high performance modem.
However, when they carefully examined the current modem technologies, they found
that none was adequate to achieve this goal. Then they took a bold step--to
go in a direction contrary to the industry trend, v.32 technology. The v.32
standard originates from The International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative
Committee, CCITT. Unfortunately, the committee overlooked something
important...YOU...the PC user. It was biased toward main frame, not PC
communications, thus cost wasn't an issue. v.32 technology is intrinsically
too costly to achieve the required performance/cost goal.
All high speed modems can communicate at 2400 bps, and many support MNP.
However, there is no modem which can communicate at 9600 bps with all other
9600 bps modems. Of four high speed modem types selling today: US Robotics,
HST, CompuCom, SpeedModem; Telebit, TrailBlazer; and Hayes et al.,v.32: NOT ONE
of these modem types will communicate at 9600 bps with any other one! They
must be the same kind. When purchasing a high speed modem one must consider
both compatibility (with whom will one be communicating) and cost. The
SpeedModems' low cost makes it an extremely attractive alternative to
established high speed modem types for the majority of users. Thus it is
expected to gather a wide base of support. Many services which support v.32
modems will also likely support SpeedModems in the near future.
COMPUCOM SPEEDMODEM...THE AFFORDABLE HIGH SPEED MODEM
SPEEDMODEM CHAMP (tm)
* 300 to 9600 bps true raw speed
* CompuCom Speed Protocol, CSP-3, throughput up to 38,400bps
* MNP 5 at data speeds of 300-4800 bps
* $169...unprecented performance to price ratio
* Dynamic Impedance Stabilization, (DIS), for noisy telephone lines
* IBM internal card supports 8 COM port addresses and 5 interrupts
* Made in America
* Five year warranty
* 30 Day money back trial.
Additional features offered by the SPEEDMODEM COMBO (tm)
* All of the Features of the Champ PLUS:
* Full featured 9600-bps send/receive Fax with background operation
* Voice mail low cost upgrade available July 1991. Upgrade is with-
out cost on orders placed before April 30.
* Only $279
Call CompuCom at 1-800-ACT ON IT for Details !
CompuCom Corp. 1180-J MiraLoma Way, Sunnyvale, CA. 94086 (408) 732-4500
(408) 732-4570 {FAX}, (408) 738-4990 {BBS}, (800) 228-6648 {Toll Free-Voice}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard disclaimer - or maybe even a bit more!
--
Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm
al@qiclab.scn.rain.comcasey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (03/04/91)
| From: al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Al Peterman) | | [[Posts an ad for a new modem.]] As far as I can tell you're not associated with the company whose product you posted an ad for. Nevertheless, it's a bad idea to posts product ads for any reason in any newsgroup other than comp.newprod. It would have been a much better idea to have contacted the company and suggested that they arrange to post their ad on comp.newprod and then post a short note on comp.dcom.modems pointing readers at that article. I understand that you probably didn't intend to break any USENET etiquette guidelines, but it's never a good idea to post commercial material to news groups other than comp.newprod no matter how interesting the product is. Please don't take this wrong. Casey
tnixon@hayes.uucp (03/04/91)
In article <1991Mar2.005717.14483@qiclab.scn.rain.com>, al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Al Peterman) posted information on the CompuCom proprietary 9600 modem. I have a couple of comments on the description. > The v.32 > standard originates from The International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative > Committee, CCITT. Unfortunately, the committee overlooked something > important...YOU...the PC user. It was biased toward main frame, not PC > communications, thus cost wasn't an issue. v.32 technology is intrinsically > too costly to achieve the required performance/cost goal. This is simply not true. We've seen dramatic reduction in the cost of V.32 modems over the past year or two -- from almost $3,000, down to street prices under $500. Many analysts believe that the price will go even lower. There is nothing "intrinsically too costly" about a V.32 modem that makes it more expensive; but it _has_ been costly because of the available technology, until now. There's no reason why the cost of implementing V.32/V.32bis will not continue to fall as technology progresses. Also, I _must_ comment on this idea that the CCITT is "biased" toward mainframe applications. That is also simply not true. Hayes, USRobotics, Telebit, and many other modem companies that focus on the PC marketplace have been active in the CCITT for many years, and you can be sure that we quite vocally look out for the interests of our customers! > All high speed modems can communicate at 2400 bps, and many support MNP. > However, there is no modem which can communicate at 9600 bps with all other > 9600 bps modems. Of four high speed modem types selling today: US Robotics, > HST, CompuCom, SpeedModem; Telebit, TrailBlazer; and Hayes et al.,v.32: NOT ONE > of these modem types will communicate at 9600 bps with any other one! They Huh? What utter nonsense. Any V.32 modem can communicate with a V.32 modem from any other vendor. USR, Telebit, Hayes, Microcom, and most other modem vendors have high-speed modems that implement V.32 and can communicate with high-speed modems from other companies. CompuCom is virtually ALONE in offering ONLY a proprietary, non-standard modem, and failing to offer compatibility at high speed. > must be the same kind. When purchasing a high speed modem one must consider > both compatibility (with whom will one be communicating) and cost. The > SpeedModems' low cost makes it an extremely attractive alternative to > established high speed modem types for the majority of users. Thus it is > expected to gather a wide base of support. Many services which support v.32 > modems will also likely support SpeedModems in the near future. Who are these "Many services"? CompuServe? Prodigy? SprintNet? BT Tymnet? No way are these important nationwide services considering yet another new, unproven, proprietary, non-standard modem technology for implementation. No way! They realize that the cost of V.32 modems is quickly dropping, and they're not going to sign on to a cheap non-standard modem just because it provides some temporary price advantage -- and then be locked into providing that service forever, even though it's only available from one company. A few BBS sysops might be willing to buy into it, but most sysops are much more aware of the importance of widespread compatibility than they used to be. If CompuCom really believes what they've written about the likelihood of their modem acheiving any kind of widespread acceptance, they're suffering from severe cranio-rectal inversion. God help their investors. [And I apologize in advance to anyone who finds these comments offensive, but I feel strongly about the issue of complying with standards.] -- 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 hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net
al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Al Peterman) (03/04/91)
I tried to email this - but since that failed, I'll post it.. In article <92423@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > > As far as I can tell you're not associated with the company whose >product you posted an ad for. Nevertheless, it's a bad idea to posts >product ads for any reason in any newsgroup other than comp.newprod. It >would have been a much better idea to have contacted the company and >suggested that they arrange to post their ad on comp.newprod and then >post a short note on comp.dcom.modems pointing readers at that article. I only posted the shortest section of the file that touted this new product, since I have extreme doubts about this product. I don't have any positive reactions to this ad, and didn't post it as an ad, but more as a semi informative file about another protocol. > I understand that you probably didn't intend to break any USENET >etiquette guidelines, but it's never a good idea to post commercial >material to news groups other than comp.newprod no matter how interesting >the product is. Please don't take this wrong. I posted it for the info (what there was of it) contained in it. I thought of not including the phone nuber line, but decided that since I was including my skepticism and disclaimer of any idea if the dammed thing is any good it would be taken that way -- Sorry if it bothered you - the ad bothers me also - as does the prospect of another 9600 protocol... -- Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
dplatt@ntg.uucp (Dave Platt) (03/06/91)
Al Peterman writes: > The v.32 > standard originates from The International Telegraph and Telephone Consultative > Committee, CCITT. Unfortunately, the committee overlooked something > important...YOU...the PC user. It was biased toward main frame, not PC > communications, thus cost wasn't an issue. v.32 technology is intrinsically > too costly to achieve the required performance/cost goal. and Toby Nixon responds: >This is simply not true. We've seen dramatic reduction in the cost >of V.32 modems over the past year or two -- from almost $3,000, down >to street prices under $500. Many analysts believe that the price >will go even lower. There is nothing "intrinsically too costly" >about a V.32 modem that makes it more expensive; but it _has_ been >costly because of the available technology, until now. I suspect that Toby's analysis is more accurate, and that history will repeat itself to some extent. Back in the early '80s, I got fed up with my lowly 300-baud modem, and looked around for one which could handle 1200 bits/second using the Bell 212 modulation. The least expensive one I could find at the time was a Racal-Vadic modem board intended for OEM users... I bought one and wired up an RS-232 interface for it myself. The cost... $475 plus tax, title, and parts for the converter. It's a large board, uses lots of power, runs rather hot... and by today's standards it's completely obsolete. 1200-bps modems today are jellybeans; you get them in boxes of Crackerjack (well, not really, but they're almost that inexpensive). Today's low-power, highly-integrated 2400 bps modems are about 5% (!) the physical size of my old 1200-bps, and use correspondingly less power. I have no reason to doubt that similar Good Things will happen in V.32 modem technology. My old Racal-Vadic board-in-a-cardboard-carton still works fine... and in fact it's rather less noise-prone at 1200 bps than a number of more modern modems I've tested out. -- Dave Platt VOICE: (415) 813-8917 UUCP: ...apple!ntg!dplatt USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (03/06/91)
In article <3826.27d2479a@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: >Huh? What utter nonsense. Any V.32 modem can communicate with a >V.32 modem from any other vendor. USR, Telebit, Hayes, Microcom, >and most other modem vendors have high-speed modems that implement >V.32 and can communicate with high-speed modems from other Not quite. Regardless of the supposed compatability, not all supposed V.32 modems will connect with each other even with V.32 (PC Magazine, Dec 11, 1990, They reviewed several (7?) V.32 modems), correctly. I imagine, though, that those modems that are less than compatible with most of the others will either shape up or disappear. >A few BBS sysops might be willing to buy into it, but most sysops >are much more aware of the importance of widespread compatibility >than they used to be. > >If CompuCom really believes what they've written about the >likelihood of their modem acheiving any kind of widespread >acceptance, they're suffering from severe cranio-rectal inversion. >God help their investors. I think you're underestimating the effect of the fact that this modem is available now and give you 9600 bps for $169, or modem/fax/voice mail for $269. I imagine that with most of the people Hayes deals with that $300-400 bucks isn't a big deal, but it is for most users. I don't have one of these CompuComs, but I am the On-Line columnist for a computer magazine, and these things are popping up all over the place, on boards and with lots of users, in amazing numbers. The big selling point is that it's only about $50 more than a decent 2400 baud external modem, and for that $50 they get MNP5 and 9600 bps with some boards. Add in the fact that the boards which are adding CompuCom nodes are the _big_ boards (Rustie and Edie's, Exec PC, Aguila) that have the files, and you've got an incentive to buy one. I'll stick with my Double Standard, thank you, but if I couldn't afford it I might buy one of these. They're not a cheap knockoff, they're using new technology to make 9600 less expensive. I saw one of these things, using their Dynamic Impedance Stabalization, connect without line noise on a line that almost crippled a Dual Standard and a Hayes Ultra 9600. I imagine the same thing will happen that happened with the C64. They'll get no respect from the power users, but they'll sell obscene amounts of them.
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (03/07/91)
In article <1991Mar5.212652.27062@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
Regardless of the supposed compatability, not all supposed V.32
modems will connect with each other even with V.32 (PC Magazine,
Dec 11, 1990, They reviewed several (7?) V.32 modems), correctly.
When that review was published, it drew widespread derision in this
forum. PC Mag's evaluation lab staff may have plenty of expertise
with PCs, but they seemed to have trouble with their test modems.
Their lab bench results didn't coincide with the real-world
experiences of many users who expressed their opinions here.
I imagine, though, that those modems that are less than compatible
with most of the others will either shape up or disappear.
That's the way standards work in a free market. It all benefits the
user.rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (03/07/91)
In article <BOB.91Mar6175036@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >In article <1991Mar5.212652.27062@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: > Regardless of the supposed compatability, not all supposed V.32 > modems will connect with each other even with V.32 (PC Magazine, > Dec 11, 1990, They reviewed several (7?) V.32 modems), correctly. > >When that review was published, it drew widespread derision in this >forum. PC Mag's evaluation lab staff may have plenty of expertise >with PCs, but they seemed to have trouble with their test modems. >Their lab bench results didn't coincide with the real-world >experiences of many users who expressed their opinions here. Thank you for that information... what's the world coming to when you can't trust PC Magazine?
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (03/08/91)
In article <1991Mar7.024728.8330@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >Thank you for that information... what's the world coming to when you can't >trust PC Magazine? I beleive the world is coming to it's senses, and seeing what the rest of us saw the day Ziff bought it, and fired the entire staff, and started over. It's been going downhill ever since. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) (03/09/91)
>From: tnixon@hayes.uucp
I recently read the spiel from CompuCom and was outraged at the things
they said. When I read your comments using words like "nonsense", I think
you're being very charitable.
The CompuCom folks are taking pot shots at existing standards and
manufacturers; I think that they deserve the weight of any backlash publicity
that decent (and scrupulous) manufacturers can provide.
--
UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent
Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | 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. - meroot@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) (03/10/91)
Ron Dippold (rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com ) wrote: >Thank you for that information... what's the world coming >to when you can't trust PC Magazine? Its senses. -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | 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
root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) (03/10/91)
In a letter to All, Ron Dippold (rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com ) wrote: >Not quite. Regardless of the supposed compatability, not >all supposed V.32 >modems will connect with each other even with V.32 (PC >Magazine, Dec 11, 1990, >They reviewed several (7?) V.32 modems), correctly. I am certain that anyone who has used the modems tested by PC magazine and compared notes with the rag will realize that the only important thing proven by PC Magazine is that general user rags like PCMag are *not competent* to perform a test such as the one in question, at least not within their time restraints. I should also clarify that I was disappointed with the figures published earlier by BYTE magazine in their June '88 article on "Ultra High-Speed modems", in which not a single modem yielded better than 960 CPS because they fed the data to the modems at 9600, not 19,200 (which most of the modems listed could handle)! To BYTE's credit, the Ven-Tel PathFinder and Telebit Trailblazer, virtually identical modems, yielded very similar results... the tests seem at least consistent. Since Telcor's 2400 bps modem with mean data compression scored well against the 9600s, I also suspect that no one thought to send compressed files, random data, or binaries in stead of text... >I think you're underestimating the effect of the fact that >this modem is available now and give you 9600 bps for $169, It *would* give you 9600 bps, if there were any other CompuCom modems around! The latest press release I got from CompuCom listed the BBSes known to carry their modems, and there were about 125 on the list... a quick scan of the 10,000 member FidoNet nodelist suggested that there are over 3,000 HSTs on FidoNet alone, and I'm sure the BBS lists maintained by Hayes and USRobotics is *orders of magnitude* longer! Sure, it could give 9600 bps within a closed system if you bought one for each site. I'm not saying that it has no value whatsoever, simply that it isn't a good investment for those who need to communicate with the outside world, or maintain some level of compatibility with the future... BTW, anyone care to bet on the SpeedModem's performance under UUCP? >I don't have one of >these CompuComs, but I am the On-Line columnist for a >computer magazine, and >these things are popping up all over the place, on boards >and with lots >of users, in amazing numbers. I'm willing to let time decide. I'm also willing to be that it becomes a passing fad. Well, OK, the HST was also a passing fad... but it lasted several years. I put 12-18 months on the CompuCom. >I saw one of these things, using their Dynamic Impedance >Stabalization, connect without line noise [...] Considering that they have error correction and would have corrected any noise, how can you be sure that DIS had any effect on the line at all? >I imagine the same thing will happen that happened with the >C64. They'll get >no respect from the power users, but they'll sell obscene >amounts of them. If and when they do, I'll gladly join the ranks. -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | 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
walvdrk_r@pttrnl.nl (03/10/91)
In article <6956.27D86C08@zswamp.fidonet.org>, root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > > >From: tnixon@hayes.uucp > > I recently read the spiel from CompuCom and was outraged at the things > they said. When I read your comments using words like "nonsense", I think > you're being very charitable. > > The CompuCom folks are taking pot shots at existing standards and > manufacturers; I think that they deserve the weight of any backlash publicity > that decent (and scrupulous) manufacturers can provide. Eh ... I (about) know what 'pot' is, but shooting with it? ;-) The 'problem' with that 'new' thing is the lack of information. The original poster was so kind as to copy part of the advertisement but that didn't give any clues about the actually used modulation technique. I suspect that it essentially uses a V.29 (fax standard for 9600bps simplex operation) modulation and that some clever tricks were added to turn around the direction of transmission (not used by faxes). If that is indeed the case, there's no reason to make such a fuzz about technological advancements. There isn't; just a smart way of using cheap and currently available technology. Could somebody shed some light on this subject? The other point may be whether it makes sense to add a (de-facto) "standard" to the existing list. -- Kees van der Wal e-mail: JC_vdWal@pttrnl.nl ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (03/11/91)
In article <6965.27D9BD8E@zswamp.fidonet.org> root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: >In a letter to All, Ron Dippold (rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com ) wrote: > > >Not quite. Regardless of the supposed compatability, not > >all supposed V.32 > >modems will connect with each other even with V.32 (PC > >Magazine, Dec 11, 1990, > >They reviewed several (7?) V.32 modems), correctly. > > I am certain that anyone who has used the modems tested by PC magazine and >compared notes with the rag will realize that the only important thing proven >by PC Magazine is that general user rags like PCMag are *not competent* to >perform a test such as the one in question, at least not within their time >restraints. What do you think of the tests perfomed by Data Communications magazine (Jan '91)? (they found the Hayes to be the best in noise-resistance, with USR by far the top in throughput over a local line) -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu .sig under construction, like the rest of this campus. I mine 600 wells, and whaddo I get? Another day older and deeper in debt! --- Saddam Hussein.
root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) (03/11/91)
Matthew T. Russotto (russotto@eng.umd.edu ) wrote: >What do you think of the tests perfomed by Data >Communications magazine >(Jan '91)? (they found the Hayes to be the best in >noise-resistance, with >USR by far the top in throughput over a local line) I haven't read that report, but the results you give are not far from what I've experienced in the Real World. Did they test PEP modems? If so, I wouldn't mind knowing how they did on the noise resistance award (which I would have awarded on the basis of lowest drop in throughput as a fraction of best throughput; Hayes might well have won that category by having higher raw throughput at a certain predetermined noise level). At the time, I would think that the 14,400 bps HST with MNP4 would have been the fastest modem for compressed data if the protocol used either streamed or had a large window. V.32bis modems can now challenge that, of course. -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | 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
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (03/12/91)
In article <6965.27D9BD8E@zswamp.fidonet.org> root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > >I think you're underestimating the effect of the fact that > >this modem is available now and give you 9600 bps for $169, > > It *would* give you 9600 bps, if there were any other CompuCom modems >around! If you live in a large city. Otherwise, forget it. > The latest press release I got from CompuCom listed the BBSes known to >carry their modems, and there were about 125 on the list... a quick scan of >the 10,000 member FidoNet nodelist suggested that there are over 3,000 HSTs on >FidoNet alone, and I'm sure the BBS lists maintained by Hayes and USRobotics >is *orders of magnitude* longer! That's an outdated list. The latest one has 300 on it. Seems to be growing rather quickly... > >I saw one of these things, using their Dynamic Impedance > >Stabalization, connect without line noise [...] > > Considering that they have error correction and would have corrected any >noise, how can you be sure that DIS had any effect on the line at all? Two ways: turning off error correction (which can be done with any of the modems) and observing the speed with error correction.
al@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Al Peterman) (03/12/91)
In article <1991Mar9.204759.65016@pttrnl.nl> walvdrk_r@pttrnl.nl writes: > >The 'problem' with that 'new' thing is the lack of information. The original >poster was so kind as to copy part of the advertisement but that didn't give >any clues about the actually used modulation technique. I posted the original posting, and believe me, that WAS the most informative section. The rest was even less informative technically. That's why I put the info out, so we could find out IF this is a decent piece of gear, and IF it is going to just add more confusion. I've allready voted for V.32 with my wallet... On the other hand, it's not the worst BS I've seen in an ad - the TICE clock gets that award... -- Alan L. Peterman (503)-684-1984 hm al@qiclab.scn.rain.com
root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) (03/12/91)
>From: walvdrk_r@pttrnl.nl >The 'problem' with that 'new' thing is the lack of information. >The original poster was so kind as to copy part of the >advertisement but that didn't give any clues about the actually >used modulation technique. He couldn't... I have read both the printed and electronic propoganda on the CompuCom SpeedModem and nowhere does it state what modulation standard is used for non-FAX 9600 bps transmission.. >I suspect that it essentially uses a V.29 (fax standard for >9600bps simplex operation) modulation and that some clever >tricks were added to turn around the direction of transmission >(not used by faxes). If that is indeed the case, there's no reason >to make such a fuzz about technological advancements. There isn't; >just a smart way of using cheap and currently available technology. I'd tend to agree: V.29FT (or some variation thereof) would be a fairly safe bet. However, if they're using an advanced form of FAX modulation for their 9600 bps, why is their SpeedModem Combo (the one with FAX capabilities) more expensive? Also, a friend swears he heard the words "asymmetrical" and "backchannel" while talking to CompuCom technocritters, but he's not a real technoid himself and, no matter how I interrogate him, meaningful information is not forthcoming. Since, to the best of my knowledge, CompuCom doesn't have an 800 line available to Canada, I'm getting my thoughts (and miscellaneous information) together before calling them myself. >The other point may be whether it makes sense to add a >(de-facto) "standard" to the existing list. If the question is, "How useful is one of these modems to me?", the answer is, it's a 2400 bps modem with MNP5. If the question is, "Could we save money if a lot of us bought one?", the answer is probably yes. If the question is, "What does this mean to 9600 bps connectivity?", I'd say that CompuCom has guaranteed that either its customers will be soon be S.O.L. or that the concept of open connectivity between major brands at 9600 bps has been set back a couple years, at least towards the low end of the market, at a time when cheap V.32 was just becoming popular. In the long term, I don't think CompuCom is doing the consumer community a favour. -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | 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
davidg%aegis.or.jp@kyoto-u.ac.jp (Dave McLane) (03/15/91)
root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > Ron Dippold (rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com ) wrote: > > >Thank you for that information... what's the world coming > >to when you can't trust PC Magazine? I read that article from PC Mag and it didn't make any sense until you look at the basic question: if you were a company and wanted to buy a pair of modems to link two machines together, what would you get? Everything they did/said is coming from that.... which means it doesn't have a lot of relevance to networks. --Dave
tnixon@hayes.uucp (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar7.053032.5393@melb.bull.oz.au>, kmp@melb.bull.oz.au (Kevin M Payne) writes: > Is there any standard, defacto or otherwise for 9600 (V29) modems. > i.e. turning the line around etc. Do any modems provide a buffered > (and assumed flow control) V29 protocol that turns the line around > but yet is transparent to the user? If such a standard exists, > where can it be found? There is no formal standard, promulgated by an accredited and recognized standards body, in this area. V.29 is only standardized for duplex synchronous communications on leased lines; it is also used for simplex transmission of image data in Group 3 facsimile. No other use is standardized. Nevertheless, a number of companies produce fast-turnaround half-duplex V.29 modems for use on multidrop leased lines and two-wire voice-grade dial-up lines. Most of these are standard synchronous half-dupelx interfaces. Microcom has defined MNP Class 6, which is a ping-pong modulation scheme based on V.29 that provides error-control, flow control, and buffering to give the appearance of a duplex asynchronous connection (similar to Hayes V-series 9600 ping-pong modulation, but the Hayes modulation is based on V.32 constellation and coding rather than V.29). To the best of my knowledge, only Multitech, other than Microcom, ever made an MNP6-compatible modem. -- 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 hayes!tnixon@uunet.uu.net
jseymour@medar.com (James Seymour) (03/15/91)
In article <1991Mar7.053032.5393@melb.bull.oz.au> kmp@melb.bull.oz.au (Kevin M Payne) writes: > >Is there any standard, defacto or otherwise for 9600 (V29) modems. i.e. >turning the line around etc. Do any modems provide a buffered (and >assumed flow control) V29 protocol that turns the line around but yet is >transparent to the user? If such a standard exists, where can it be found? > MultiTech runs MNP-6 "on top of" their v.29 implementation. The product is their 696E. It handles all of the above. Other than a couple of v.29-specific register settings, it doesn't look or act any differently than any other modem with MNP. I've been using a couple of them for remote logins on a system here at work and they're doing quite an acceptable job for that use, but I suspect the turn-around delay would be noticable with some file transfer protocols. They're quite a bit less expensive than the v.32 modems. I asked them about the "standard-ness" of v.29 and, as I recall, they mentioned that at least one or two other vendors had implemented v.29 in a manner that was compatible with the MultiTech product. >-- >Kevin Payne | Internet: kmp@melb.bull.oz.au >Melbourne Development Centre | Phone: +61 3 420 0435 >Bull H.N. Information Systems Australia | Fax: +61 3 420 0445 >I never speak for the company, that would put the PR people out of a job! -- Jim Seymour | Medar, Inc. ...!uunet!medar!jseymour | 38700 Grand River Ave. jseymour@medar.com | Farmington Hills, MI. 48331 CIS: 72730,1166 GEnie: jseymour | FAX: (313)477-8897
system@syzzle.chi.il.us (SYSTEM 0PERATOR) (03/18/91)
> The other point may be whether it makes sense to add a (de-facto) "standard" > the existing list. If it truly works, and they're willing to sell it for $169.00, then YES add another "standard". If it becomes popular (and as I said earlier, if it works OK), I'll buy one!
markh@squirrel.tek.com (Mark C. Henderson) (03/19/91)
In article <1991Mar7.053032.5393@melb.bull.oz.au> kmp@melb.bull.oz.au (Kevin M Payne) writes: >Is there any standard, defacto or otherwise for 9600 (V29) modems. i.e. turning >the line around etc. Do any modems provide a buffered (and assumed flow control) >V29 protocol that turns the line around but yet is transparent to the user? If >such a standard exists, where can it be found? I suppose that MNP 6 is at least one of the most common schemes for this. One of the larger network providers in the U.S. (Telenet/Sprintnet) has been offering MNP 6 modems connections for a few years. There are a couple of modems that implement it: the Microcom AX/9624c and a modem from MultiTech (I can't remember the model number). I would not call it a "standard", but it is used. Mark -- Mark C. Henderson, Computer Research Laboratory, Tektronix, Inc. MS 50-662, P.O. Box 500, Beaverton, OR 97077, U.S.A. INTERNET: markh@crl.labs.tek.com MCI MAIL: 378-4996 Tel: +1 503 627 6280 Fax: +1 503 627 5502 TELEX: 6503784996MCI UW