bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (11/29/90)
The modem comparison article in the December 11 1990 issue of PC Magazine has stimulated some interesting discussion, particularly regarding the poor showing of the Telebit T2500 in their comparison tests. I went through the article with a highlighter and thought I'd offer a few impressions. First, a few key excerpts, first from the comparison test description, page 329: "Unfortunately, the Telebit modems were not able to complete the data transfer tests under any of the EIA-standard impairment conditions. We saw similar problems using these modems under their native PEP mode." then from the individual modem review, page 336: "The unit gave us a few headaches while we were trying to set up for V.32/V.42/V.42bis testing. Because the default configuration tries to connect with another Telebit modem using PEP first, we needed several phone calls to technical support to get the modem configured for our performance tests... It was not successful for any of our 24 impaired line tests, despite repeated tries and extensive consultation with the company." Now, some responses to things said here: In article <1990Nov19.191023.11581@nstar> larry@nstar (Larry Snyder) writes: The Telebit modems will hold the line better than the dual standard... This is the "conventional wisdom" held by many modem users, particularly those who have used Telebits alongside other modems in difficult environments. In article <1990Nov21.221114.11850@unixland.uucp> bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) writes: Interesting -- did you see PC Magazine's comments about the T2500? They "couldn't recommend it" because it wouldn't hold the line on noisy connections. This is the fundamental disagreement between PCMag and modem users. In article <1715@chinacat.Unicom.COM> chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Chip Rosenthal) writes: Then they did not run their tests in PEP mode. According to PCMag, they tried both V.* and PEP, with similar results. Note: They tried but were apparently unsuccessful at actually *running* the tests in both universes. In article <1990Nov23.185029.2663@nstar.rn.com> larry@nstar.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes: That's not what happens in real applications - ask around - and you'll find Telebits maintaining links around the world. Again, the conventional wisdom contradicts PCMag's results. The telebit's lost out [in PC Week's review] primarily due to their lack of supporting a DTE speed of 38400... One might expect that Telebit would quickly catch up and offer a 38.4Kb DTE interface. In article <5@ivysoft.UUCP> tonyl@ivysoft.UUCP (Regular Tony Lin id as normal user) writes: If you want to use your high speed modem for UUCP, wouldn't the TELEBIT be a better choice because it has PEP protocal support? But be aware of the fact that PC Magazine said it failed in their impaired line tests. Yes, be aware of that fact. Question both the modem and the tests. In article <1990Nov26.010656.20883@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: I'm not sure what mode they were using it in, but in PEP mode the T2500 holds the line better than any of the V.32s that I have tried (including the T2500 itself in v.32 mode). That's true if they were successful in setting up their modems, and were actually using PEP correctly. If they had "a few headaches" setting up their modems, and didn't do it right, then one might expect the results they reported. In <9842@discus.technion.ac.il> devil@techunix.BITNET (Gil Tene) writes: Well, I wonder If they plugged it in right, or did thay plug it in at all? ;-) You might be getting close! I am using a TB2500 for an overseas connection 1/3 the way around the globe. The line is VERY noisy, it has my TB running at "only" 350-700 Bytes/sec. I can get a connection almost every time and hardly ever loose it. Another empirical data point to support the conventional wisdom. It's beginning to sound more and more as if PCMag might not have configured their T2500s as carefully as you did yours, eh? I have tried several other connections, including 1200, 2400 (w and w/o MNP) and 9600 V.32, I have not been able to keep anything other than a TB2500 with PEP on the line for more than 30 seconds This is typical of reports from non-North American users. In article <1990Nov26.024835.13024@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) writes: The PC Mag article is primarily about V.32. It is not clear to what extent they tested PEP. They apparently tried, but unsuccessfully. What is your experience with V.32? You must have missed the rest of his description. Mr Tene tried V.32, but he didn't mention whether he used MNP4 or V.42 or any other noise suppression method, nor whether that would have helped him maintain a carrier. In article <1990Nov26.062122.24546@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbstaff2.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: The PC Mag test was measuring the ability to hold the line when using V.32/V.42/V.42bis and not PEP. This makes all of the difference. The article was about the standards, but they also tested HST and tried to test PEP. With the T2500, they reported that they were unsuccessful at almost everything they tried that exercised the modem in interesting ways. In article <8353@gollum.twg.com> david@twg.com (David S. Herron) writes: By *ALL* reports I've heard, and *ALL* the testing I've done with telebit's they work excellently on "impaired lines". ...another empirical data point that contradicts what the PCMag testing lab had to say. The only downfalls of PEP are 1-- it's not a "standard" True, this is a major problem. 2-- It's half-duplex. In-modem protocol spoofing and careful protocol design (e.g. TCP header compression) make this less important if the modem is not to be used for simple typing. In article <326@comtst.UUCP> mdv@comtst.UUCP (Mike Verstegen) writes: We have used Trailblazer+ modem (close relative of the T2500) for inbound and outbound, domestic and international with no problems from the modem. Are we just lucky, or did Telebit get a bad review? I have come to believe the latter. The experiences commonly reported by Telebit users so contradict the PCMag review results that I am inclined to doubt the test procedure. And a few key clues from the article support my conclusion. The problems described in the article all appear to be addressed by the modem's user documents. When using a modem that's nearly Turing-complete, it helps to RTFM. The testers were apparently unable to decipher the documentation for S50, 92, S94, perhaps S95, S97, S106, S107, and maybe even S98. While the documentation does require study, it's frankly not that tough. I find that the modems come with register settings that are fairly close to what I want to use most of the time. For any variations or oddities, a couple hours of playing almost invariably get me on the air. Lacking the ability to decipher TFM, they "needed several phone calls to technical support to get the modem configured for our performance tests," and even after "repeated tries and extensive consultation with the company," couldn't do the tests they wanted. I have found Telebit's technical support to be quite capable over the several years I have used their modems. They have helped me when I've listened to what they've had to say. I wonder whether Telebit's inability to help PCMag's reviewers with the modems might not have been related more to the reviewers than to the customer support staff or to the modems? We've all dealt with users who, despite our best efforts, heard only what they wanted to hear and were uninterested in accepting our advice. As often as not, the user will storm out of the office and grumble loudly to anyone in earshot that "the system is a pile of junk and the user support staff aren't interested in helping me get my work done." It's at least plausible that PCMag's review lab and Telebit's customer support staff interacted in this way - it would explain their results, which are so obviously different from those of regular Telebit users. And the shame of it is, PCMag went to print before their testing problems were resolved (if they ever were), and that article has by now been photocopied and shoved into folders all over the world, to be treated as an authoritative reference manual to choosing high-speed modems. I don't know who fared worst from that article: Telebit, or companies like Intel whose modems didn't even make it into the review. (I have no connection with Telebit or any other modem company, other than as a very satisfied user. I just don't like seeing good products and good companies getting an unfair shake; and I don't like seeing users making purchase decisions based on misinformation.)
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher,,255RTFM,255rtfm) (11/30/90)
Bob Sutterfield and others talked about the PC mag tests... >"The unit gave us a few headaches while we were trying to set up for >V.32/V.42/V.42bis testing. Because the default configuration tries to >connect with another Telebit modem using PEP first, we needed several >phone calls to technical support to get the modem configured for our >performance tests... >Yes, be aware of that fact. Question both the modem and the tests. > Well, I wonder If they plugged it in right, or did thay plug it in > at all? ;-) > >You might be getting close! >The problems described in the article all appear to be addressed by >the modem's user documents. When using a modem that's nearly >Turing-complete, it helps to RTFM. >And the shame of it is, PCMag went to print before their testing >problems were resolved (if they ever were), and that article has by >now been photocopied and shoved into folders all over the world, to be >treated as an authoritative reference manual to choosing high-speed >modems. I don't know who fared worst from that article: Telebit, or >companies like Intel whose modems didn't even make it into the review. I've chopped a lot out, but it's still is long, but...... First of all, a magazine is typically NOT bribeable. They serve their customers to the best of their ability. BUT, you the reader, are NOT the customer. You are the PRODUCT being peddled to the customer -- the advertisers. And the term is not "BRIBE" anyhow, rather it is "editorial support." I have some second hand experience with a review by a magazine such as Bite, PeeSea Magazine, Unpopular Computing, etc. I helped betatest a product that depended on the {internal} hardware working properly when pushed. Not overworked, just asked to do what it was supposed to. In a world populated with thousands of clones of all levels of quality, this can be a problem. So the people who put together the product put an AUTOMATIC testing procedure into the code. When you installed it, it tested the hardware, and then set the best performance it could. So, out came the review. XYZ mag said it came in 4th, I think, because its performance was so slow. Everyone at the company TRIED to duplicate the results, and could not. Finally they figured out that the tester never RTFMed, and NEVER INSTALLED THE PRODUCT. They just copied it over, plugged things in and away they went. Of course, the product was well-designed, and was set to start at the slowest speed, a good worst_case_design idea. But since XYZ never bothered to install it, they ran the test at the slowest speed. I know that the company talked to XYZ to try to get this error corrected, but I guess that XYZ would never want to admit they totally FUBARed the review, because I sure never saw a retraction article. Moral: Believe that magazine with no ads it.... {NO, not that one! I mean the one with the fold-in and Alfred E. Newman.} -- A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335
jmc@teqsoft.UUCP (Jack Cloninger) (11/30/90)
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >The modem comparison article in the December 11 1990 issue of PC >Magazine has stimulated some interesting discussion, particularly >regarding the poor showing of the Telebit T2500 in their comparison >tests. I would also like to add my name to the list of VERY satisfied Telebit T2500 users. The T2500 is fundamentally a nearly general purpose DSP platform. As such it is capable of offering many different modes of operation. Telebit has translated that generality into a rich set of user-selectable options implemented through a somewhat formidable set of S-registers. The more options a user has to select from, the more difficult the initial setup may tend to be, especially to a reviewer whose only contact with the hardware in question may be during the deadline-driven review process. I like to use the analogy of a standard tumbler-type doorlock when talking about the difficulty of setting up a piece of hardware or a software system that has many options. In order for a lock to open, the key that is inserted must raise each of the tumblers to the exactly right level so that the bolt will move. By analogy the lock tumblers are the S-registers that must all be set up correctly to get the desired behavior. This is not a criticism of Telebit, merely my humble understanding of why well meaning and even quite technically capable people tend to get things wrong when faced with many options. TFM is IMHO very complete in its explanation of the nature and function of each of the options, and simply requires diligent reading to arrive at a proper level of functionality. Telebit customer support also has supplementary documents available that suggest complete register setups for particular situations. I have no connection whatever with Telebit, but I am very pleased with the performance of my T2500 and am well aware that any problems I may have had with the initial setup were based on my human reaction to the number of setup choices available. Jack -- Jack Cloninger, TeqSoft, 112 US Highway 1, Tequesta, FL 33469 B-) ...uunet!comtst!teqsoft!jmc Phone: 407-747-7163 Fax: 407-747-0354
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (12/04/90)
All of this reminds me of a BYTE review of some UNIX or Xenix system. The silly reviewer type "cat" or some such thing (which waits to read from standard input) and then complained that it "hung" the system because he didn't see anything happen. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) (12/07/90)
In article <BOB.90Nov28170251@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >The modem comparison article in the December 11 1990 issue of PC >Magazine has stimulated some interesting discussion, particularly >regarding the poor showing of the Telebit T2500 in their comparison >tests. I went through the article with a highlighter and thought I'd >offer a few impressions. First, a few key excerpts, first from the >comparison test description, page 329: > [a bunch of stuff about PCmags tests on Telebits deleted] Once upon a time I needed to sell a few bar code readers to a video store client. So I picked up my then trusted PC Mag to find out what they recommended (at that time I thought an Editors Choice award was like having God call you by name) for purchase. I immediately ordered several of the Aedex readers at about $400 a pop. Boy what a mistake, this reader was a real dog in more ways that one. They spent more time in the shop than on duty. I ended up having to buy these readers back just to save my reputation (it was that bad). Moral of the Story: Don't base your purchasing decisions entirely on PC Mag. You could find yourself burned beyond recognition. -- uucp: holston!barton pseudo: barton@holston.UUCP
bill@unixland.uucp (Bill Heiser) (12/08/90)
In article <5791@holston.UUCP> barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) writes: > >Moral of the Story: Don't base your purchasing decisions >entirely on PC Mag. You could find yourself burned beyond >recognition. I don't know about anyone else (and I know this doesn't really relate to comp.dcom.modems, sorry!) -- but I'm seriously considering dropping my subscription to PC Mag. I've subscribed for several years to read about the new machines, etc -- but with reviews like that of the Telebit, I'm questioning whether it's even worth my time to read them! -- home: ...!{uunet,bloom-beacon,esegue}!world!unixland!bill bill@unixland.uucp, bill%unixland.uucp@world.std.com Public Access Unix - Esix SYSVR3 - 508-655-3848 12/24/96-HST 508-651-8733 12/24/96-PEP/V32
chandler@beagle.UUCP (Jim Chandler) (12/10/90)
In article <5791@holston.UUCP>, barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) writes: > In article <BOB.90Nov28170251@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: > >The modem comparison article in the December 11 1990 issue of PC > >Magazine has stimulated some interesting discussion, particularly > [a bunch of stuff about PCmags tests on Telebits deleted] > > Moral of the Story: Don't base your purchasing decisions > entirely on PC Mag. You could find yourself burned beyond > recognition. Here here. Many times they are inaccurate about what features the equipment has. Having to compare 50 PCs for example, they may miss a few things. Also I noticed that they compare these systems with a business person in mind. While this is OK and I understand that they are tailoring to their readership, most power users will not find the info that they want. Overall, use common sense and research a purchase prior. -- Jim Chandler asuvax!xroads!beagle!chandler chandler@beagle.uucp
bill@camco.Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) (12/15/90)
In <405@beagle.UUCP> chandler@beagle.UUCP (Jim Chandler) writes: >In article <5791@holston.UUCP>, barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) writes: >> In article <BOB.90Nov28170251@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >> >The modem comparison article in the December 11 1990 issue of PC >> >Magazine has stimulated some interesting discussion, particularly >> [a bunch of stuff about PCmags tests on Telebits deleted] >> >> Moral of the Story: Don't base your purchasing decisions >> entirely on PC Mag. You could find yourself burned beyond >> recognition. >Here here. Many times they are inaccurate about what features the equipment >has. Having to compare 50 PCs for example, they may miss a few things. Also >I noticed that they compare these systems with a business person in mind. >While this is OK and I understand that they are tailoring to their readership, >most power users will not find the info that they want. Overall, use common >sense and research a purchase prior. >-- >Jim Chandler >asuvax!xroads!beagle!chandler >chandler@beagle.uucp I find it difficult to believe anything I believe in the PC mags where the editors think DOS is an operating system and BASIC a programming language. That should get your attention and start a flame war! The problem is that these people have limited experience and little knowledge of anything outside of the PC world. This is going to show up more in a group dealing with communications since DOS isn't very good at communications and communication implies dealing with a multitude of systems and protocols. Examples of this is the old 'Wordstar diamond' which used ctrl-s for cursor control not realizing that this was x-off, and DOS conventions of using a single ESC to cancel something where the ESC character is generally the beginning of a sequence. This is OK so long as one stays withing the PC environment, but causes problems when dealing with the rest of the world. If I'm the only person around I can do anything I want, but if I live in a community I need to get along with my neighbors. The PC magazines and users need to be educated and learn that there is a big world out there that isn't afflicted with 640K memory barriers, 32Meg disk limits, or any of the other idiocy foisted on the world by IBM. -- INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!bill 6641 East Mercer Way uunet!camco!bill Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion) (12/16/90)
In article <552@camco.Celestial.COM> bill@camco.Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes: >I find it difficult to believe anything I believe in the PC mags >where the editors think DOS is an operating system and BASIC a >programming language. >That should get your attention and start a flame war! Flame - why flame. Isn't that what you would expect of a magazine where the editor was chosen because he was the owners son-in-law, and had NO computer experience? -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de (Horst Laumer) (12/17/90)
bill@camco.Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes: >In <405@beagle.UUCP> chandler@beagle.UUCP (Jim Chandler) writes: >>In article <5791@holston.UUCP>, barton@holston.UUCP (Barton A. Fisk) writes: >>> In article <BOB.90Nov28170251@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: >>> >The modem comparison article in the December 11 1990 issue of PC >>> >Magazine has stimulated some interesting discussion, particularly >>> [a bunch of stuff about PCmags tests on Telebits deleted] >>> >>> Moral of the Story: Don't base your purchasing decisions >>> entirely on PC Mag. You could find yourself burned beyond >>> recognition. >I find it difficult to believe anything I believe in the PC mags >where the editors think DOS is an operating system and BASIC a >programming language. True, true. A modem is a communication equipment, not a simple extension to a box where any programm can say "MINE are the interrupts"! But, please keep in mind that you obviously mean PC-/MS-DOS, DOS/VS* on Big Blue's mainframes isn't that bad (but I like my UNIX-box best !). --HL -- ============================================================================ Horst Laumer, Kantstrasse 107, D-1000 Berlin 12 ! Bang-Adress: Junk-Food INET: hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de ! for Autorouters -- me -- UUCP: ..unido!fub!geminix!sunrise.in-berlin.de!hotte
kim@Software.Mitel.com (Kim Letkeman) (12/17/90)
In article <552@camco.Celestial.COM> bill@camco.Celestial.COM (Bill Campbell) writes: | I find it difficult to believe anything I believe in the PC mags | where the editors think DOS is an operating system and BASIC a | programming language. | | That should get your attention and start a flame war! A flame war isn't necessary, since this statement is so obviously an opinion. Not that either DOS or BASIC are terribly good, but both are what they claim to be. | The problem is that these people have limited experience and | little knowledge of anything outside of the PC world. This is | going to show up more in a group dealing with communications since | DOS isn't very good at communications and communication implies | dealing with a multitude of systems and protocols. I think you probably mean that the PC BIOS is not particularly good at communications, since it has known problems in handling interrupts. DOS, on the other hand, is quite good at comms. It is possible to purchase a multitude of intelligent comms cards and it is possible to write device drivers and/or interrupt handlers that allow very high speed communications. In fact, I doubt that you could find a system that has more communications hardware and software readily available than DOS because of the huge independant vendor population. | Examples of this is the old 'Wordstar diamond' which used ctrl-s | for cursor control not realizing that this was x-off, and DOS | conventions of using a single ESC to cancel something where the | ESC character is generally the beginning of a sequence. The number of people using Wordstar over an RS-232 port versus the number using it at a console is so small that this example is a non-issue. Besides, GNU Emacs was written by a rather knowledgable person, and uses both ^S and ^Q as commands by default. What has the ESC convention got to do with DOS's ability to do communications? | This is OK so long as one stays withing the PC environment, but | causes problems when dealing with the rest of the world. If I'm | the only person around I can do anything I want, but if I live in | a community I need to get along with my neighbors. PCs have survived rather well along with the rest of the world. In fact, the latest stats and projections (Sept 24, 1990 issue of New York Times) show operating system market share as: Year DOS UNIX Windows OS/2 1987 88.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 1989 75.0 2.3 14.5 1.7 1994 43.2 7.6 28.7 13.5 As well, the BBS and on-line information market was created by PCs. | The PC magazines and users need to be educated and learn that | there is a big world out there that isn't afflicted with 640K | memory barriers, 32Meg disk limits, or any of the other idiocy | foisted on the world by IBM. Perhaps others could see that DOS has done much more good than harm to those that use computers in everyday life. That too would be an education. -- Kim Letkeman kim@software.mitel.com uunet!mitel!spock!kim
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (12/20/90)
One thing no one has mentioned so far was PC Magazine's "Editor's Choice" modem, the MultiTech V.32. I think this choice says more about the magazine than their drubbing of the Telebit. I purchased a pair of these, based on MultiTech's impeccable reputation with their 224E V.22bis MNP5 modems. I can say without hesitation that the Multi- Tech V.32 modem is the worst piece of garbage I've ever seen turned out as a finished product by an American modem manufacturer. Its performance over *any* line condition was poor. Within the same CO over nearly flawless lines, the MultiTech simply would not hold a connection for more than 30 minutes or so. Over long distance it was almost totally unusable. I wouldn't dream of trying over international lines. Needless to say, my ancient Telenet TrailBlazer+ runs PEP almost perfectly over all these same connections; never mind a T2500. (I haven't tried the T2500 enough in V.32 to make a fair comparison. I plan to, soon.) If that wasn't bad enough, there were all the firmware bugs in the MultiTech. Without warning, the modem would lose all of its saved configuration. Or it would go catatonic, and need a power cycle to come back. Or it would set all the S registers to 255, or all to 0. Or it would flow control off, and never turn it back on. (Power cycle, again.) They're on the shelf now, collecting dust. No one is willing to use them any more. <csg>
luce@aurs01.UUCP (J. Luce) (12/21/90)
So, how cheap would you be willing to sell one of these for as a used NG piece of modem eqpt (The MultiTech)... Let me know at 919-850-6787.
RAF@CU.NIH.GOV ("Roger Fajman") (12/21/90)
My wife has a MultiTech V.32 modem. It has also lost its saved options for no apparent reason.
ed@dah.sub.org (Ed Braaten) (12/22/90)
kim@Software.Mitel.com (Kim Letkeman) writes: >PCs have survived rather well along with the rest of the world. In >fact, the latest stats and projections (Sept 24, 1990 issue of New >York Times) show operating system market share as: >Year DOS UNIX Windows OS/2 >1987 88.2 2.6 2.3 0.3 >1989 75.0 2.3 14.5 1.7 >1994 43.2 7.6 28.7 13.5 Is the New York Times trying to outdo PC Magazine in the propagation of mis-information? Windows is not an operating system. It is a proprietary windowing environment which runs *under* DOS. (Follow-ups directed to c.s.ibm.pc.misc...) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Ed Braaten | "... Man looks at the outward appearance, Work: ed@de.intel.com | but the Lord looks at the heart." Home: ed@dah.sub.org | 1 Samuel 16:7b --------------------------------------------------------------------
jimmy_t@verifone.com (12/24/90)
In article <138332@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > One thing no one has mentioned so far was PC Magazine's "Editor's Choice" > modem, the MultiTech V.32. I think this choice says more about the magazine > than their drubbing of the Telebit. ... > Over long distance it was almost totally unusable. I wouldn't dream of trying > over international lines. > We also bought some MultiTech V.32 modems after having very good experiences with their 2400/MNP modems. We did try them on international lines and local lines -- Our experiences mirrored yours i.e. the modems were very close to unusable. Perhaps PC Mag got MultiTech modems with a newer design or firmware? In buying Multitech modems over a 2 year period we found that almost everytime we received a new Multi-Tech 2400 bps modem it came with a newer version of firmware or was a totally new design. +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+ | James H. Thompson | jimmy_t@verifone.com (Internet) | | VeriFone Inc. | uunet!verifone!jimmy_t (UUCP) | | 100 Kahelu Avenue | 808-623-2911 (Phone) | | Mililani, HI 96789 | | +------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
kanefsky@cs.umn.edu (Steve Kanefsky) (12/25/90)
In article <2477.2771e71f@verifone.com> jimmy_t@verifone.com writes: >In article <138332@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > >> One thing no one has mentioned so far was PC Magazine's "Editor's Choice" >> modem, the MultiTech V.32. I think this choice says more about the magazine >> than their drubbing of the Telebit. > ... >> Over long distance it was almost totally unusable. I wouldn't dream of trying >> over international lines. >> > >We also bought some MultiTech V.32 modems after having very good experiences >with their 2400/MNP modems. We did try them on international lines >and local lines -- Our experiences mirrored yours i.e. the modems >were very close to unusable. > >Perhaps PC Mag got MultiTech modems with a newer design or firmware? In >buying Multitech modems over a 2 year period we found that almost everytime we >received a new Multi-Tech 2400 bps modem it came with a newer version of >firmware or was a totally new design. I have a Farallon Remote/V.32 modem which matches the description of the PC Mag article exactly (i.e. power switch is in same inconvenient location, status light are in exactly the same order and have exactly the same behavior, same number of DIP switches, etc. etc.) I even saw a chip labeled MultiTech when I opened the case up. I haven't had a single problem with this modem. It was pretty much plug-n-play. I've connected to nearly every possible legal combination of {2400, 9600} {no error correction, MNP 4, LAPM} and {no compression, MNP 5, V.42bis}. It's amazing that the thing even works with my Mac 512E, which doesn't support hardware handshaking, yet I can easily get throughputs well over 2000 cps in both directions, and I'm pretty sure I'm still limited by my Mac/serial port/telecom program combination and not the modem itself. I've never made international calls, but all my local and domestic long distance calls have worked fine, and I've almost never failed-to-make or lost a connection. -- Steve Kanefsky kanefsky@cs.umn.edu
howardl@wb3ffv.ampr.org ( WB3FFV) (12/25/90)
From article <2477.2771e71f@verifone.com>, by jimmy_t@verifone.com: > In article <138332@pyramid.pyramid.com>, csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > >> One thing no one has mentioned so far was PC Magazine's "Editor's Choice" >> modem, the MultiTech V.32. I think this choice says more about the magazine >> than their drubbing of the Telebit. > ... >> Over long distance it was almost totally unusable. I wouldn't dream of trying >> over international lines. >> > > We also bought some MultiTech V.32 modems after having very good experiences > with their 2400/MNP modems. We did try them on international lines > and local lines -- Our experiences mirrored yours i.e. the modems > were very close to unusable. Hello All, I figured I would throw in my two cents worth. I have been using a pair of V.32 modems from multitech for close to a year now, and usually make an internation connection (to Holland) several times a week. I can't say that I have never had a line drop (but what do you expect), but in general the V.32 links seem to work fine. I also use Telebits here, and feel that for Internation UUCP I would rather have the Telebit, but for Interactive use I will take the v.32 modem hands down. The one other thing I will say for both modems is that they both seem to work very well with hardware flow control. The one glitch that peeves me with the Telebit Tblazer+ is that it won't respect the W command imbedded in a number (which the multitech and Hayes modes work with), so I get stuck using a bunch of commas in my LD calls... Happy Holidays, Howard Leadmon - WB3FFV ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Internet : howardl@wb3ffv.ampr.org | Howard D. Leadmon UUCP : wb3ffv!howardl | Advanced Business Solutions TELEX : 152252474 | 210 E. Lombard St - Suite 410 Telephone : (301)-576-8635 | Baltimore, MD 21202
jseymour@medar.COM (James Seymour) (12/27/90)
In article <138332@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: > One thing no one has mentioned so far was PC Magazine's "Editor's Choice" > modem, the MultiTech V.32. I think this choice says more about the magazine The choice they made reflected the tests they ran, which many seem to consider as complete and correct. It's reasonable to argue the technical merits of their testing procedure, but if the test procedure is valid you can hardly criticize their choice when made as a result of it. > than their drubbing of the Telebit. Personally, I didn't regard PC Magazine's comments regarding the TeleBit product as a "drubbing", but then I'm not a TeleBit owner/fan. > I purchased a pair of these, based on MultiTech's impeccable reputation with > their 224E V.22bis MNP5 modems. A logical move. > I can say without hesitation that the Multi- > Tech V.32 modem is the worst piece of garbage I've ever seen turned out as a > finished product by an American modem manufacturer. Now _that's_ a drubbing! > Its performance over *any* > line condition was poor. Within the same CO over nearly flawless lines, the > MultiTech simply would not hold a connection for more than 30 minutes or so. > Over long distance it was almost totally unusable. I have not had this experience. I have extensively tested several versions of MultiTech v.32 modems within my area code, and less extensively tested them over long-distance lines (within the continental U.S.) without these problems. I regularly use my MT v.32 modems for extensive on-line sessions (hours at a time) to the UNIX/Xenix systems at work and only _occasionally_ is the line dropped. When the line is dropped, it usually happens fairly soon in the session, indicating to me that the connection was probably poor in the first place. I've been running MultiTech v.32 modems on UNIX/Xenix systems and on a BBS 24 hours a day, and on my personal computers, and they have worked well for me. > I wouldn't dream of trying > over international lines. Given your experiences, I can't argue with that. > Needless to say, my ancient Telenet TrailBlazer+ runs PEP almost perfectly > over all these same connections; never mind a T2500. (I haven't tried the > T2500 enough in V.32 to make a fair comparison. I plan to, soon.) The consensus of opinion seems to be that the TeleBit modulation method _is_ more robust than v.32. I have no personal experience with it. > If that wasn't bad enough, there were all the firmware bugs in the MultiTech. I haven't noted a _lot_ of firmware bugs. > Without warning, the modem would lose all of its saved configuration. I have experienced this. MT acknowledges the problem and there is a fix. I understand the fix requires _some_ ability with a soldering iron. See later comments regarding technical support. > Or it > would go catatonic, and need a power cycle to come back. Or it would set all > the S registers to 255, or all to 0. Or it would flow control off, and never > turn it back on. (Power cycle, again.) I haven't seen this. Maybe it's related to the above problem and fix. > They're on the shelf now, collecting dust. No one is willing to use them any > more. You don't mention whether or not you contacted MultiTech's technical support about your experiences. Since you didn't mention it, I suspect you haven't. I think you would be pleasantly surprised. They have a toll-free number: (800)328-9717. My understanding is that everything except major firmware/hardware _upgrades_ is covered under their liberal two-year warranty. I've been dealing with MultiTech for three or four years now, and I've yet to find a problem they haven't been willing to resolve. > <csg> Like any other leading-edge product, MultiTech products sometimes do have problems. Can any other (modem) manufacturer claim otherwise? MultiTech modems usually rate at or near the top in technical performance reviews (most notably under impaired line conditions). Admittedly such tests are limited in nature, but I doubt that a product line could fare well time after time in performance tests without there being a similar experience by end-users. Furthermore, I've found that you get much more useful results by contacting a vendor and precisely describing a problem than by simply complaining that "it's broke and I'm unhappy". If a vendor's products consistently perform poorly, or if a vendor is reluctant to resolve problems with their products, they certainly deserve a good, healthy flaming, but in this case I think you have unfairly maligned a good manufacturer on limited experience. So there :-). Disclaimer stuff: In addition to owning MultiTech products, I beta-test for them as well, so I may be somewhat biased in my opinions. On the other hand the company I work for pays me good money to make sound engineering decisions for them. It wouldn't be good for my job security to work with blinders on. Lastly, the opinions expressed herein are mine alone, and are not necessarily shared by my employer or any cited manufacturer, vendor, or other entity. -- 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
salc@aristotle.shearson.com (Sal Cataudella) (01/04/91)
-- Sal Cataudella Internet: salc@alfred.shearson.com UUCP: ...!uunet!slcpi!alfred!salc (212) 464-3871