lrogers@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Larry Rogers) (02/19/91)
We have a bank of Penril modems that are having a difficult time connecting with a remote Zoom modem (unknown version). Our Penril's are able to connect t to other modems without problems, including the ability to "step down" to 2400 or 1200. The Zoom modem are set to receive at 2400. I was told that this modem is able to connect to many other types of modems, so I think it may be particular to this combination of modems. Our bank of modems is the next release after revision D. No manual. We tried an earlier release of the Penrils, revision D, and it was able to connect to the Zoom after several lines of garbage were recieved. The bank of modems display several errors being recieved and then time-out, disconnect, or whatever after 20 seconds. The basic configuration for the bank of Penrils seem to be a default, however, this could be wrong. The bank of Penrils need to dial out to many other sites. A least common denominator problem is rapidly evolving, it seems. Could someone tell me: a) Does the reciving modem initiate the discussion of what protocols are to be used? b) Are there any known problems with these two modems talking to each other? c) Are there any Penril paramters i should try changing to accomodate this problem?
tnixon@hayes.uucp (02/20/91)
In article <5975@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, lrogers@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Larry Rogers) writes: > a) Does the reciving modem initiate the discussion of what protocols are to be > used? The answering modem always transmits first, and the calling modem listens. I don't know whether or not the Alliance V.32 uses the CCITT Automode procedure, but if it does, it interworks with V.22bis modems by first sending an answer tone (with phase reversals in it, in case the calling modem is V.32), the follows this by three seconds of the Unscrambled Binary 1 signal (2250Hz plus 2850Hz together) that a V.22bis modem expects to see. Perhaps the Zoom needs more than three seconds, or perhaps it is confused by the phase reversals in the answer tone. Hard to say. > b) Are there any known problems with these two modems talking to each other? > > c) Are there any Penril paramters i should try changing to accomodate this > problem? If I were in your situation, I would call Penril Technical Support and ask these questions. It's possible that Penril has a parameter, as do Hayes modems, to extend the USB1 transmission time from 3 seconds to a larger value, in case your Zoom modems need more time (but they shouldn't; the standard says they should respond after only about 600 msec of USB1). Unfortunately, Zoom is not known for quality. -- 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
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (02/21/91)
In article <3789.27c251f8@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: [ deleted specifics of Penril problem ] > ...... Unfortunately, Zoom is not known for >quality. >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 Is this a gratuitous slap at a competitor or can you cite specifics about this, recognizing you do have an inherent bias. I have been using Zoom products for rather low end modem use and am considering some of their new products for higher-end demands (v42bis) I have noted the new stuff has a 2 year warranty compared to a 7 y\on the more garden variety ones and would like to truly know if there is a reason for suspicion. Jeff Sicherman
tnixon@hayes.uucp (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb21.062918.2304@beach.csulb.edu>, sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) writes: > In article <3789.27c251f8@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: > >> ...... Unfortunately, Zoom is not known for >>quality. > > Is this a gratuitous slap at a competitor or can you cite specifics about > this, recognizing you do have an inherent bias. Yes, it is a gratuitous slap at a competitor, which I probably shouldn't do even if it is true. I don't know about Zoom products from personal experience, but base my comments on many, many reports that I've seen on CompuServe of recurring problems with Zoom modems. It's sort of "conventional wisdom" on IBMCOM Forum to avoid Zoom products. Sorry; I should have qualified the source of the comment when I initially made it. -- 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
kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) (02/23/91)
In article <3789.27c251f8@hayes.uucp> tnixon@hayes.uucp writes: >[stuff deleted] >If I were in your situation, I would call Penril Technical Support >and ask these questions. It's possible that Penril has a parameter, >as do Hayes modems, to extend the USB1 transmission time from 3 >seconds to a larger value, in case your Zoom modems need more time >(but they shouldn't; the standard says they should respond after >only about 600 msec of USB1). Unfortunately, Zoom is not known for >quality. You don't say if this observation about Zoom modem quality is from personal experience or from hearsay. I purchased a Zoom modem several years ago, the model PC 2400 XL. It was their super delux internal modem, which they later discontinued. It is fully Hayes compatible with lots of additional features. Very early on I experienced a problem uploading at 2400 baud. Unfortunately, the problem did not consistently manifest itself. Zoom's hot line provided me with a list of things to try before deciding to ship it back to them for service. After trying them all, they failed to help. So I sent it in for service. Zoom kept it for a week and were unable to reproduce the problem. But while they had it, they went and upgraded the ROM chip to the most recent version free-of-charge. Well, I still had the 2400 baud upload problem, so the technican speculated that a particular chip might have an intermittent problem. To minimize my loss of use time, he asked if I could, or knew someone who could, replace the chip on the modem. I did, so rather then having to ship it back, they shipped me the chip. I was impressed. Unfortunately, the new chip did not fix the problem. So I sent the modem back a second time. Seven days later, a brand new modem arrived, shipped next day air. I have been happy ever since! I cannot, however, speak to the quality of the new line of inexpensive Zoom modems that have appeared in the past year. I can only attest that after getting the replacement modem, I have been pleased with its reliability. I do know that the new line of inexpensive Zoom modems comes with a 7-year warranty. This suggests to me that Zoom must have some degree of confidence in the quality of its product. How long is the warranty on Hayes modems? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Gallagher kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh DSC Communications Corporation Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------