jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (03/02/90)
Well I've made my decision on what kind of modem to purchase. I had originally thought that a Telebit T1000 or Telebit Trailblazer would be the appropriate modem for me, with it's built in support for UUCP resistance to line noise and and high speed transfer rates. At least one poster pointed out, however, that I might be making a mistake with the Telebits and I can see now that they were right, so I've decided to purchase a Racal Vadic 9632VP V.32 compatible modem. The rational: Telebits are great for UUCP transfer and high-speed transfers with other Telebits. You just can't beat 'em. They are also quite reliable even over cruddy communications lines. The problem is that all of the Telebits are EXPENSIVE ($550 for the least expensive Telebit) and do high-speed transfers using their own proprietary PEP protocol. This is achieved by running the line in half-duplex mode and the Telebits are notorious for slow line turnarounds which means running SLIP on a Telebit would be PAINFUL. Telebit does manufacture a V.32 modem which also incorproates PEP but this modem is $1050 discount pricing. Too much for me. MacUser, a Macintosh magazine, ran a big article on high speed modems recently in which they tested and rated different manufacturers' V.32 modems. They rated the CONNECT service modem as tops due to it's superior performance and all the little extras that CONNECT throws in. CONNECT is apparently a business oriented bulletin board service so you get a free subscription and 1 hour's connect time to their service with the modem. The problem with this is the price: $999 for a lot of stuff I don't need. The Racal Vadic 9632VP rated second with excellent throughput and very good resistance to noise. The USR Courier V.32 rated just behind the Racal. Although the USR was slightly faster, it was much more expensive. The runners up included the Prometheus ProModem 9600 and Mac Friends Lightspeed. The Mutltitech V.32 modem showed dissapointing performance and line noise resistance, despite the ravings about Multitech modems on the net. The Prometheus and Lightspeed similarly showed only average throughput and noise resistance. The lowest price for the Racal Vadic, that I've found, is $650 from Lex Computers in Columbia Maryland. That's a VERY good price for a V.32 modem. The USR Courier V.32 can't be had for anything less than $900. The Prometheus and Mutitech modems show solid although average performance at a decent price. The Prometheus can be obtained mailorder for about $750 and the Multitech is available from Avnet (414) 796-2400 for about $680. So, the Racal looks best with the lowest price and second place performance characterstics. Cowabunga! Since most of the high-speed modems in my calling vicinity are Telebit T2500's, they will also support V.32 and it will be possible to converse with them at the higher rates if necessary. I also believe that proprietary protocols (as nice as the g protocol spoofing and PEP are) are a thing of the past. The emergent standards of today will be the defato standards of tomorrow so V.32 is it. V.32 also means SLIP support! The only problem is that I won't be able to talk to Telebits in PEP mode. Big deal. Enjoy!
jjj@batgirl.hut.fi (Joni Jaakko J{rvenkyl{) (03/02/90)
In article <8398@potomac.ads.com> jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) writes: >very good resistance to noise. The USR Courier V.32 rated just behind >the Racal. Although the USR was slightly faster, it was much more >expensive. I got a USR V.32 a couple of weeks ago and I must admit it's the best modem I've EVER tested (and that covers quite a lot of them, although not Microcom MNP9 stuff). I've had no problems with setup, connectivity, line noise or anything. This is close to perfect. Well, it doesn't cook your morning coffee... I've found no bugs, odd behaviour or anything what usually is found in every modem sooner or later. I must admit I'm pretty astonished. >Mac Friends Lightspeed. The Mutltitech V.32 modem showed >dissapointing performance and line noise resistance, despite the >ravings about Multitech modems on the net. I don't understand the hassle about Multitech modems at all. Well, they do have call back, but that's only a small plus compared to the overall performance, "ease" of use and so on. -- totuus ilman rakkautta;rakkaus ilman totuutta;tunteeton el{m{;vahinko.
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (03/02/90)
In article <1990Mar1.204011.28258@santra.uucp>, jjj@batgirl.hut.fi (Joni Jaakko J{rvenkyl{) writes:
Have you checked with USR on the refurb modems? They were selling
HSTs for something like $349 ($399) - and I don't know if they
are also selling the refurb V.32 /dual standards.
--
Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA
uucp: larry@nstar -or- ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry
4 inbound dialup high speed line public access systempaul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) (03/03/90)
jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) writes: >Telebits are great for UUCP transfer and high-speed transfers with >other Telebits. You just can't beat 'em. They are also quite >reliable even over cruddy communications lines. The problem is that >all of the Telebits are EXPENSIVE ($550 for the least expensive >Telebit) and do high-speed transfers using their own proprietary PEP >protocol. This is achieved by running the line in half-duplex mode >and the Telebits are notorious for slow line turnarounds which means >running SLIP on a Telebit would be PAINFUL. Telebit does manufacture >a V.32 modem which also incorproates PEP but this modem is $1050 >discount pricing. Too much for me. Have you tried a telebit recently? I use a TB+ to talk to a T2500 on a Cisco terminal server and have not noted slow echoing. The SLIP issue is likely to become a non-issue now that the PPP RFC has been issued. I expect Telebit to have some sort of SLIP support relatively soon since there is a large demand for it. No guarantees from me though. >Since most of the high-speed modems in my calling vicinity are Telebit >T2500's, they will also support V.32 and it will be possible to >converse with them at the higher rates if necessary. I also believe >that proprietary protocols (as nice as the g protocol spoofing and PEP >are) are a thing of the past. The emergent standards of today will be >the defato standards of tomorrow so V.32 is it. V.32 also means SLIP >support! The only problem is that I won't be able to talk to Telebits >in PEP mode. Big deal. I disagree. The performance edge of the Telebits is so great I would not consider a V.32 only modem. The defacto standard that I see is PEP and not V.32. -- Paul Pomes UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!paul Internet, BITNET: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu US Mail: UofIllinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL 61801-2987
nemisis@blake.acs.washington.edu (Karen McElroy) (03/03/90)
In article <511217@nstar.UUCP>, larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: > In article <1990Mar1.204011.28258@santra.uucp>, jjj@batgirl.hut.fi (Joni Jaakko J{rvenkyl{) writes: > > Have you checked with USR on the refurb modems? They were selling > HSTs for something like $349 ($399) - and I don't know if they > are also selling the refurb V.32 /dual standards. > > -- > Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN USA > uucp: larry@nstar -or- ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry > 4 inbound dialup high speed line public access system Where can I check for more info about this? $349 for V.32 9600 bps modems.
hsu@hutcs.hut.fi (Heikki Suonsivu) (03/04/90)
In article <1990Mar2.220228.2836@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: >I disagree. The performance edge of the Telebits is so great I would not >consider a V.32 only modem. The defacto standard that I see is PEP and There is another point pro telebits also; V32 doesn't work reliably overseas. Never seen succesfull connection with any V32 modem. I have tried modems which have been tested to work on local and in-scandinavia connections, with no luck. - Heikki Suonsivu, @ 2:504/1, Kuutamokatu 5 A 7/02210 Espoo/FINLAND, hsu@otax.tky.hut.fi (or @hutcs.hut.fi or @clinet.fi), mcsun!hutcs!hsu, riippu SN, voice +358-0-8030017, Email preferable.
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (03/04/90)
In article <1990Mar2.220228.2836@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: > >I disagree. The performance edge of the Telebits is so great I would not >consider a V.32 only modem. The defacto standard that I see is PEP and >not V.32. How can you say the defacto standard is PEP when there is only 1 manufacturer that uses it? V.32 is used by every major modem manufacturer and is formally documented as a standard. I have 8 9600+ baud modems, all of which understand V.32 and two of which understand PEP. PEP alone is ok if you want to limit yourself and anybody you will connect with to a single manufacturer. To me, that is too much of a limitation even if it is fast. Pleas note that I am not downing PEP, I use it for my newsfeed, but for interactive connections with lots of different types of modems, I will always go with a V.32 modem that will also talk V.22 and V.22bis. The T2500 fits all of these requirements, but is too expensive. -- -- Conor P. Cahill (703)430-9247 Virtual Technologies, Inc., uunet!virtech!cpcahil 46030 Manekin Plaza, Suite 160 Sterling, VA 22170
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (03/05/90)
> Where can I check for more info about this? $349 for V.32 9600 bps modems.
Call 1-800-DIAL-USR and ask for information on their refurbished modems.
--
The Northern Star Public Access Unix Site, Notre Dame, Indiana USA
uucp: iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry internet: larry@nstar
USR HST 219-287-9020 * PEP 219-289-3745 * Hayes V9600 219-289-0286paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) (03/05/90)
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >How can you say the defacto standard is PEP when there is only 1 manufacturer >that uses it? Easily since all the sites I'm interested in calling have Telebits. Some also have V.32. >V.32 is used by every major modem manufacturer and is formally documented >as a standard. > >I have 8 9600+ baud modems, all of which understand V.32 and two of which >understand PEP. The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from (Tanenbaum). A standard like V.32 that can't maintain a connection over less than perfect lines is useless to me. Two immediate examples are the neighboring GTE service area and international calls. Three kinds of V.32 modems could not maintain a connection from either to UIUC while the telebits ran w.o. problem. >PEP alone is ok if you want to limit yourself and anybody you will connect >with to a single manufacturer. To me, that is too much of a limitation >even if it is fast. Pleas note that I am not downing PEP, I use it for >my newsfeed, but for interactive connections with lots of different types >of modems, I will always go with a V.32 modem that will also talk V.22 and >V.22bis. I will take the best available that fits my needs. V.32 is a bad standard in my book given its performance losses. Handling noisy or sub-standard lines by dropping back to 4800 or 2400 baud is hardly what I would call robust. >The T2500 fits all of these requirements, but is too expensive. Modems that can't perform are even more expensive. -- Paul Pomes UUCP: {att,iuvax,uunet}!uiucuxc!paul Internet, BITNET: paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu US Mail: UofIllinois, CSO, 1304 W Springfield Ave, Urbana, IL 61801-2987
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (03/05/90)
In article <1990Mar3.164553.29588@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > In article <1990Mar2.220228.2836@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: > > > >I disagree. The performance edge of the Telebits is so great I would not > >consider a V.32 only modem. The defacto standard that I see is PEP and > >not V.32. > > How can you say the defacto standard is PEP when there is only 1 manufacturer > that uses it? As long as you are thinking in the Unix/usenet/uucp context PEP is the defacto standard for > 2400bps communication. If you don't think so, then perform some analysis on info from the uucp maps or other sources. > V.32 is used by every major modem manufacturer and is formally documented > as a standard. "Formally documented" implies "dejure" not "defacto". Sure lots of modem manufactures are supporting V.32, on the other hand, it's not obvious that they're in a big hurry to drop their proprietary protocols... > I have 8 9600+ baud modems, all of which understand V.32 and two of which > understand PEP. I have 16 9600+ modems and ~30 more dispersed, all of which understand PEP and do what I expect of them pretty reliably. Two of these modems also understand V.32 and have been used a handful of times to contact Tymenet or BBS systems. I've never had occasion to make a uucp connection with one. > PEP alone is ok if you want to limit yourself and anybody you will connect > with to a single manufacturer. To me, that is too much of a limitation > even if it is fast. Pleas note that I am not downing PEP, I use it for > my newsfeed, but for interactive connections with lots of different types > of modems, I will always go with a V.32 modem that will also talk V.22 and > V.22bis. It's fairly obvious that each of the Telebit, USR HST and V.32 standards have achieved sufficient penetration in specific market segment that if you expect to interact with one of those segments you are kidding yourself if you can't support the appropriate protocol. > The T2500 fits all of these requirements, but is too expensive. Hopefully that will change, but it would also help if Telebit would break down and support HST mode as an alternative. There is no obvious technical reason why their modem hardware can't handle the task... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
steve@wattres.UUCP (Steve Watt) (03/05/90)
In article <1990Mar3.164553.29588@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: >In article <1990Mar2.220228.2836@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> paul@uxc.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Pomes - UofIllinois CSO) writes: >> >>I disagree. The performance edge of the Telebits is so great I would not >>consider a V.32 only modem. The defacto standard that I see is PEP and >>not V.32. > >How can you say the defacto standard is PEP when there is only 1 manufacturer >that uses it? Let me introduce you to the VenTel Pathfinder 18K. It also supports PEP, and I have had nothing but good service from it. I remember seeing one other (Everex? Dunno...) but Telebit is NOT the only manufacturer of PEP modems. Price? Uhh... Call Ventel? I don't remember! :) Just my $.89. -- Steve Watt ...!claris!wattres!steve wattres!steve@claris.com also works If you torture your data long enough, it'll eventually confess.
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (03/05/90)
In article <435@wattres.UUCP>, steve@wattres.UUCP (Steve Watt) writes: > > Let me introduce you to the VenTel Pathfinder 18K. It also supports PEP, and > I have had nothing but good service from it. I remember seeing one other > (Everex? Dunno...) but Telebit is NOT the only manufacturer of PEP modems. > Price? Uhh... Call Ventel? I don't remember! :) I thought that the Pathfinder was a Trailblazer Plus in a Ventel case. -- The Northern Star Public Access Unix Site, Notre Dame, Indiana USA uucp: iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry internet: larry@nstar USR HST 219-287-9020 * PEP 219-289-3745 * Hayes V9600 219-289-0286
loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) (03/06/90)
In article <1990Mar3.164553.29588@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > The T2500 fits all of these requirements, but is too expensive. The really expensive part is the bit-pump. I.e., the T2500 (and newer-style TB+) have a considerable amount of computing power. And this is why the T1000 can't do better than 9600bps; it just doesn't have the power! In article <9977@cbmvax.commodore.com> grr@cbmvax (George Robbins) writes: > ...it would also help if Telebit would break down and support HST mode > as an alternative. Why? What would HST give them that PEP and/or V.32 already doesn't? They've already got one proprietaty protocol - why give into another vendor's creation? Besides, PEP has the ability to hold onto a connection that V.32 (with or without MNP) would drop. I.e., lossy lines or calling to the UK. From home, I most always use V.32 on my T2500, but during one particularly bad thunderstorm, I had such severe crackling on the line that only PEP would keep the connection going (for 5 hours). John
yossie@marque.mu.edu (03/06/90)
Well, I called up USR this morning and asked about the "refurbished modem" deal. The guy had the following to say: 1) Its ONLY on Courier 9600 modems, no V.32, no 14.4K mode. Vanilla 9600. 2) Its $350 (resonable, actually) 3) There is a 3 (three!) month waiting list for them. Actually I suspect its much longer as I have a friend who ordered one 5 months ago and hasn't even heard a squeek from them yet! I also got the informtion from Avnet computers regarding the MultiSystems V.32 modem. The list is $1099, they are charging $680. The modem seems very nice, although they didn't really send me much in the way of technical data. The company would seem to be reputable, it is a part of Avnet Inc. which is a Fortune 500 company. They have numbers and branches in many cities, I think that calling 800-877-2226 will get you a general information line. You might try calling MultiTech at 800-328-9717 to find out the nearest dealer to you. Cheers - Yossie P.s. the latest GLOBAL catalog has the Courier HST priced at $775 (list is $995).
hakanson@ogicse.ogi.edu (Marion Hakanson) (03/06/90)
In article <8612@xenna.Xylogics.COM> loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) writes: >. . . >The really expensive part is the bit-pump. I.e., the T2500 (and newer-style >TB+) have a considerable amount of computing power. And this is why the >T1000 can't do better than 9600bps; it just doesn't have the power! You are correct that the T1000 cannot go as fast as the TB+ or T2500, but you are mistaken about 9600bps being the T1000's top speed. If you check the appropriate S-register (there's one for xmit and one for rcv bit rates), a clean line will report the maximum of 11600 (or in that ballpark, I forget the exact numbers). To verify their claim, I measured throughput (using zmodem) with the serial line set at 9600bps and compared it to a transfer with the line set at 19200bps (both trials were with the T1000 connected to a TB+ running at 19200bps on the other end). The higher line speed yielded higher throughput. So don't sell the T1000 short on that count. -- Marion Hakanson Domain: hakanson@cse.ogi.edu UUCP : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!ogicse!hakanson
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (03/06/90)
In article <9675@marque.mu.edu>, yossie@marque.mu.edu writes: > > P.s. the latest GLOBAL catalog has the Courier HST priced at $775 (list is > $995). SYSOP price on the HST is something like $450 ($720 for the dual standard) and the dealer price for the HST is $589 (Tech Data). -- The Northern Star Public Access Unix Site, Notre Dame, Indiana USA uucp: iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry internet: larry@nstar USR HST 219-287-9020 * PEP 219-289-3745 * Hayes V9600 219-289-0286
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (03/06/90)
In article <8612@xenna.Xylogics.COM> loverso@Xylogics.COM (John Robert LoVerso) writes: > In article <1990Mar3.164553.29588@virtech.uucp> cpcahil@virtech.UUCP (Conor P. Cahill) writes: > > The T2500 fits all of these requirements, but is too expensive. > > The really expensive part is the bit-pump. I.e., the T2500 (and newer-style > TB+) have a considerable amount of computing power. And this is why the > T1000 can't do better than 9600bps; it just doesn't have the power! > > In article <9977@cbmvax.commodore.com> grr@cbmvax (George Robbins) writes: > > ...it would also help if Telebit would break down and support HST mode > > as an alternative. > > Why? What would HST give them that PEP and/or V.32 already doesn't? Simply because the HST is a very popular item in the BBS/PC world and having HST compatibility in the trailblazer would increase the general utility of the modem. I'd expect it to do wonders for T1000 sales if it didn't add to the cost. It's also a better interactive mode than PEP, even with the short packets - you've probably noticed this if you use rn or vi over your Tailblazer. Theoretically, it should be be easy. Any modem that can do V.32 and has programmable guts should be able to do 9600 QAM + back channel without even straining. Of couse there may be practical problems, the T2500's I have do V.32 by virtual of a Rockwell chipset piggyback board instead of using the DSP chip as originally expected... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
steve@wattres.UUCP (Steve Watt) (03/06/90)
In article <511247@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >In article <435@wattres.UUCP>, steve@wattres.UUCP (Steve Watt) writes: >> >> Let me introduce you to the VenTel Pathfinder 18K. It also supports PEP, and [ brief ad for VenTel omitted ] > >I thought that the Pathfinder was a Trailblazer Plus in a Ventel case. Nope. The case is about 1/2 the size of the Trailblazer Plus internal board. Unless they found a way to cut the board from Telebit in half... :) On the other hand, it may be manufactured by Telebit... Dunno. -- Steve Watt ...!claris!wattres!steve wattres!steve@claris.com also works If you torture your data long enough, it'll eventually confess.
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (03/08/90)
In article <8398@potomac.ads.com> jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) writes: >The Mutltitech V.32 modem showed dissapointing performance and line noise >resistance, despite the ravings about Multitech modems on the net. I think they were being excessively generous. The MultiTech V.32 is garbage. Plain garbage. Don't even *think* of buying one. A pity, too, since most of their other modems are quite good, and good value. <csg>
jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher) (04/07/90)
In article <14965@cbnews.ATT.COM> mjs@cbnews.ATT.COM (martin.j.shannon,59112,lc,4nr10,201 580 5757) writes: >Uucp's g protocol works flawlessly from a USR Dual Standard (speaking V.32) >to a Telebit T2500 (and verse visa [sic!]). They even agree on MNP5 (and >get it right). (Now, if only I could get NJBell to stop trashing the line, >I'd be all set!) That's running in V.32 mode, not at 14400. If I wanted to run at 9600, I'd still get a Telebit because I wouldn't have to worry about my line being noisy. >as BBSs run under UNIX become popular. The DOS folks are getting >Telebits to talk to their favorite BBSs that just happen to run on a >UNIX box that has Telebit modems, and the UNIX folks are getting USR >HST modems because their favorite news feed happens to be a FIDO BBS >(presumably running ufgate) that has USR modems. Soon, the fancy but I don't know anyone that has their newsfeed coming from a FIDO BBS. And most people don't get their newsfeed from a FIDO BBS - especially if they are running unix. >The bottom line is get whichever flavor of 14400 bits/sec you like for >*today*, but get a V.32 capable modem for next week. Telebits are not a flavor of 14.4. They are a flavor af 19.2. And V.32 is becoming obsolete already. If I was looking for the best modem to buy to run with unix and to get a newsfeed with, there's absolutely no doubt I'd get a Telebit before anything eles (and have). V.32 and nothing else can compare. It seems to me that the hostility towards Telebits are being displayed by those used to the DOS world coming into the unix world. If you are going to remain in DOS, get an HST. If you are going to work with unix, get a Telebit - not an HST, not a V.32. A Telebit. Period. The number of _unix_ sites running HSTs vs. running Telebits are negligible. -- Jesse W. Asher - Dynasys - (901)382-1705 Evening: (901)382-1609 6196-1 Macon Rd., Suite 200, Memphis, TN 38134 UUCP: {fedeva,chromc,autoz}!dynasys!jessea
a186@mindlink.UUCP (Harvey Taylor) (04/07/90)
In <134@dynasys.UUCP>, jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher) writes: } [...] } } The number of _unix_ sites running HSTs vs. running Telebits are } negligible. } Jesse, Can you document this? I tried to get this kind of info from our sysop, but he says he doesn't have the uucp maps, the only source I know from which to extract such data. The folklore I have heard is that HST has the BBSes, PEP has Unix & Hayes has business, but I have never seen figures for Unix sites (or business). I pulled some data for Fido sites from a local board (see below). Considering the computational power of these high speed modems it will be interesting to see how cheap they become. As has been said ad nauseam, the best thing about V.32 is that it enables competition and _lower_ prices. PEP and HST will always be proprietary. Here is that FidoNet modem distribution data. --- Modem statistics for FidoNet Produced on 12-03-1989 at 13:28:38 Modem Baud Rates for all Zones 300 baud modems 54 1200 baud modems 386 2400 baud modems 3,899 4800 baud modems 4 9600 baud modems 2,531 Total modems 6,488 Modem Flags for 9600 Baud modems in all Zones V29 modems 1 V32 modems 469 V33 modems 0 V34 modems 0 V42 modems 17 H96 modems 33 HST modems 2,093 MAX modems 11 PEP modems 194 HST/V32 modems 353 --- "The chief enemy of creativity is `good' taste." -Picasso Harvey Taylor Meta Media Productions uunet!van-bc!rsoft!mindlink!Harvey_Taylor a186@mindlink.UUCP
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (04/08/90)
> I don't know anyone that has their newsfeed coming from a FIDO BBS. > And most people don't get their newsfeed from a FIDO BBS - especially > if they are running unix. If that were the case - wow - what a load. uucp with the HST (non dual) at best produces 355 cps (I was offering this service). Forget the 355 cps using ufgate - I was feeding a waffle site under DOS (nstar runs UNIX). The only reason for someone wanting news via HST is that they once were a DOS site and have since converted to Unix (usenet) - or need to remain compatible with DOS machines (or don't have the $$$). One must admit the HST SYSOP price of $450 verses the PEP internet discount ($800?) leaves a lot to be desired. I would really like a 2500 but at $900 (discounted) I can't afford it. If the T2500 were priced against with dual standard ($725) I would buy one today (tomorrow?). > Telebits are not a flavor of 14.4. They are a flavor af 19.2. > And V.32 is becoming obsolete already. If I was looking for the best > modem to buy to run with unix and to get a newsfeed with, there's > absolutely no doubt I'd get a Telebit before anything eles (and have). > V.32 and nothing else can compare. I agree 100%. If you are serious about this stuff - the PEP is the only modem. > It seems to me that the hostility towards Telebits are being displayed > by those used to the DOS world coming into the unix world. If you > are going to remain in DOS, get an HST. If you are going to work with > unix, get a Telebit - not an HST, not a V.32. A Telebit. Period. > The number of _unix_ sites running HSTs vs. running Telebits are > negligible. I was running an HST prior to last Tuesday. I got tired of slow feeds keeping the phone busy when I could be feeding 6 to 8 other machines. I get 1400-1420 cps feeding multi-megabytes of news within the midwest - 800-950 cps feeding Alaska, and 1000 - 1100 feeding Florida. Those rates are not bad - considering everything is compressed (16 bit) and the fact that 4 lines are usually busy feeding news at one time.. -- ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry -or- larry@nstar
kim@spock (Kim Letkeman) (04/09/90)
In article <134@dynasys.UUCP>, jessea@dynasys.UUCP (Jesse W. Asher) writes: | Telebits are not a flavor of 14.4. They are a flavor af 19.2. | And V.32 is becoming obsolete already. If I was looking for the best | modem to buy to run with unix and to get a newsfeed with, there's | absolutely no doubt I'd get a Telebit before anything eles (and have). | V.32 and nothing else can compare. | Could you please explain why V.32 is becoming obsolete? What is going to replace it? -- Kim Letkeman uunet!mitel!spock!kim
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (04/10/90)
In article <2950@kim>, kim@spock (Kim Letkeman) writes: > > Could you please explain why V.32 is becoming obsolete? What is going > to replace it? how about v.42bis? -- ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!larry -or- larry@nstar
tnixon@hsfmsh.UUCP (Toby Nixon) (04/13/90)
In article <511474@nstar.UUCP>, larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: - > Could you please explain why V.32 is becoming obsolete? What is going - > to replace it? - - how about v.42bis? V.42 bis is not a modulation scheme. It is a data compression scheme only, used with V.42 LAPM error control. V.42 can be used with any full duplex synchronous modulation scheme, such as V.22, V.22 bis, V.26 ter, or V.32. V.32 bis, when it is finalized, will also support V.42 (and therefore V.42 bis). I don't think that V.32 bis is going to obsolete V.32. The draft V.32 bis recommendation requires backward compatibility with V.32, but adds 7200, 12000, and 14400 bps rates (full duplex, not half-duplex or asymmetrical like the HST or DAMQAM). It will take a year or two for V.32 bis modems to come on the market, and they will initially be somewhat more expensive than existing V.32 modems, but eventually the "modem of choice" will be a V.32 bis/V.42 bis modem. -- Toby ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer Fax: +1-404-441-1213 Telex: 6502670805 Hayes Microcomputer Products Inc. Voice: +1-404-449-8791 CIS: 70271,404 Norcross, Georgia, USA BBS: 1-800-US-HAYES MCI: TNIXON Telemail: T.NIXON/HAYES AT&T: !tnixon UUCP: ...!uunet!attmail!tnixon Internet: 70271.404@compuserve.com MHS: C=US / AD=ATTMAIL / PN=TOBY_L_NIXON / DD=TNIXON -----------------------------------------------------------------------------