CS117341@YUSol.bitnet (Norman) (07/26/89)
Hello all, In last month's PC Digest Ratings Report (vol 3 #6), they reviewed 10 High-Speed modems. Among them, are the Microcom QX/V.32c, USR Courrier HST Dual Standard, Hayes V-series 9600, and Telebit Trailblazer Plus. Overall, the Microcom rated 8.5/10, with the USR trailing with a 7.8. Rather surprisingly, the Trailblazer + rated a 5.4 (it scored 8th, tying with the Ventel Pathfinder). The Microcom and USR modem both offer a 38.4K data rate between the system and computer, which would help to explain their high performance in comparison to the other modems. Interestingly, the Trailblazer+ doesn't seem to do well in comparison to the MNP 5 modems. In fact, it was generally one of the slower modems in the tests. Recently, I've recommended the purchase of two Trailblazer T2500 modems for high-speed communications, and am now faced with responding to the conclusions of PC Digest. Now, I do realize that the TB+ and T2500 are different modems; the T2500 having v.32 and MNP 5. However, I am at a loss to explain the Trailblazer's rather sluggish performance in PEP mode. Would anyone have any clues as to why the Trailblazer didn't do well in this report? Please respond directly, and I'll summarize to all who request it. Norman
CS117341@YUSol.bitnet (Norman) (07/27/89)
I forgot to include my address in my last message... I'm reposting the whole message again. Apologies... Hello all, In last month's PC Digest Ratings Report (vol 3 #6), they reviewed 10 High-Speed modems. Among them, are the Microcom QX/V.32c, USR Courrier HST Dual Standard, Hayes V-series 9600, and Telebit Trailblazer Plus. Overall, the Microcom rated 8.5/10, with the USR trailing with a 7.8. Rather surprisingly, the Trailblazer + rated a 5.4 (it scored 8th, tying with the Ventel Pathfinder). The Microcom and USR modem both offer a 38.4K data rate between the system and computer, which would help to explain their high performance in comparison to the other modems. Interestingly, the Trailblazer+ doesn't seem to do well in comparison to the MNP 5 modems. In fact, it was generally one of the slower modems in the tests. Recently, I've recommended the purchase of two Trailblazer T2500 modems for high-speed communications, and am now faced with responding to the conclusions of PC Digest. Now, I do realize that the TB+ and T2500 are different modems; the T2500 having v.32 and MNP 5. However, I am at a loss to explain the Trailblazer's rather sluggish performance in PEP mode. Would anyone have any clues as to why the Trailblazer didn't do well in this report? Please respond directly, and I'll summarize to all who request it. Norman (most of these work) cs117341@yusol.Bitnet cs117341@sol.YorkU.CA cs117341%yusol@mivma.mit.edu cs117341%yusol@cunyvm.cuny.edu cs117341%yusol@forsythe.stanford.edu [...]!psuvax1!yusol.bitnet!cs117341 [...]!utzoo!yunexus!yusol!cs117341 (?) [...]!utzoo!nexus.yorku.ca!yusol!cs117341(?)
grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) (07/28/89)
In article <89Jul26.231152edt.57880@ugw.utcs.utoronto.ca> CS117341@YUSol.bitnet (Norman) writes: > > In last month's PC Digest Ratings Report (vol 3 #6), they > reviewed 10 High-Speed modems... We could get in another extended discussion about the sames issues as the last extended discussions... The real questions are: 1) Are the things they are testing relevant to your application. 2) Are the test procedures really reflective of real world conditions. 3) Which modems give you the most utility/connectivity. 4) Which modems give you the highers performance / dollar. 5) Which modems address any special concern for your applications. Conditions in the modem market are changing. Last year, the Telebit was the clear leader in the unix/uucp area. This year the others are much more competitive. In the PC/BBS world MNP and mega-baud rates have more attraction and cause fewer problems than in the Unix world. Transmitting a spread sheet thats 75% spaces isn't the same as a compressed news batch. V.32 is becoming more important (and cheaper). Everybody should have at least one modem that talks V.32 for talking to the outside universe, which translates into all modems should do V.32 in addition to their proprietary techniques, as long as cost doesn't make them non-competitive. Telebit has in some ways failed to really keep up with the market in ways that would make them more competitve, resting on their technology and initial penetration into niche markets. Support for USR modes would allow interoperation into the BBS area and still seems to be a reaonsable compromise for interactive use. V.32 was late in coming and expensive. SLIP support is illusory, giving away a growing niche to the V.32 solutions. The 38.4 K-baud frenzy is mostly specsmanship and false advertising, but there's no (obvious) reason why at TB can't talk 38.4K too. The 5.00 ROM's were very slow in coming, while the auto-baud and modem wedging bugs made initial installation harder then it should have been and created bad press. Lack of clear and explicit documentation for the spoofing modes creates doubt and uncertainty. The incompatibility between the telebit answering sequences and smart-modem "voice detect" and the "S92=1" kludge turned things that should have worked simply and by default into operational hassles. BTW, I am a "satisfied" Telebit customer, and we've now bought around 50 Telebits, including TB+, T1000, rackmounts and a couple T2500's. I just think they could be doing a better job and may suffer for it. -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing arpa: cbmvax!grr@uunet.uu.net Commodore, Engineering Department fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)