mab@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu (09/16/88)
It seems that noone has experience with ZOOM modems. How about the Signalman Mark XII or the Volksmodem? I'm looking for an inexpensive (good quality) modem. Is there another brand that someone knows of? I'd appreciate some comments. Thanks. mab@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu
campbell@sushi.UUCP (Larry Campbell) (09/18/88)
In article <219100002@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu> mab@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu writes: }It seems that noone has experience with ZOOM modems. }How about the Signalman Mark XII or the Volksmodem? }I'm looking for an inexpensive (good quality) modem. Avoid the Signalman Mark XII like the plague! It is riddled with bugs. (1) It doesn't support RI (Ring Indicate). (2) It doesn't hang up when DTR drops. This is a real killer -- your system could be dialled in to, say, Mozambique or something, then crash -- and you'd get a _whopper_ of a phone bill next month, because the modem didn't hang up for days. (3) It can't tolerate noisy phone lines. Unfortunately, most of the PC-oriented low-cost modems are trash. The one really good modem I have found in the low end market is the Racal-Vadic 1200V. It's not fancy, but it supports all the RS232 signals correctly, does well on noisy lines, and these days it should be very inexpensive. (I paid $200 apiece for them about three years ago.)
jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Pierre Radley) (09/18/88)
In article <219100002@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu> mab@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu writes: >It seems that noone has experience with ZOOM modems. >How about the Signalman Mark XII or the Volksmodem? >I'm looking for an inexpensive (good quality) modem. >Is there another brand that someone knows of? I use Practical Peripherals 2400 baud, Hayes compatible. I've had them for the last eight months. No trouble whatsoever. Cost me around 175.00 each, plus tax. -- Time is nature's way of Jean-Pierre Radley making sure that everything ..!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!jpr doesn't happen all at once. CIS: 76120,1341
gary@mic.UUCP (Gary Lewin) (09/18/88)
In article <6505@dasys1.UUCP> jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes: >In article <219100002@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu> mab@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu writes: >>It seems that noone has experience with ZOOM modems. >>How about the Signalman Mark XII or the Volksmodem? >>I'm looking for an inexpensive (good quality) modem. >>Is there another brand that someone knows of? > >I use Practical Peripherals 2400 baud, Hayes compatible. I've had them for the >last eight months. No trouble whatsoever. Cost me around 175.00 each, plus >tax. >-- I also have a Practical Peripherals PM2400SA modem. For the money ( $166.00 ), this modem does very well. It is also made in the USA, a rarity these days. There is a full 5 year warrenty, which does not seem to be needed (yet? :-). Before finally buying this modem, I tried three Packard Bell 2400 baud modems, one after the other. Each one had serious brain damage. After the first of these, I stopped testing them with UN*X and checked them out with a dumb terminal. The fact that these could be sold to anyone is incredible! Nice case, though. In the same price range ( $129.00 - $139.00 ), there were three brands available at Soft Warehouse in Dallas. These were Incomm, Anchor and Packard Bell. Since I have had TERRIBLE experiences with Incomm in the past and Anchor is really Signalman, there was nothing left but Packard Bell [ which has (had) a good name with hardware ]. If anyone is choosing an inexpensive modem and is willing to experiment a bit, I have one piece of advice. BEFORE buying, be absolutly sure that the company you purchase from allows returns with NO PROBLEMS. Soft Warehouse does and I am sure some others do too. This is not the kind of thing to experiment with via mail order. Driving 100 miles to save $10.00, also does not make sense. For some reason, modems epitomize the saying "LET THE BUYER BEWARE". Gary Lewin {convex, killer, tness7}!mic!gary
pmech@oucsace.cs.OHIOU.EDU (Paul J. Mech) (09/19/88)
In article <6505@dasys1.UUCP>, jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Pierre Radley) writes: > In article <219100002@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu> mab@iapic.cvm.uiuc.edu writes: > >I'm looking for an inexpensive (good quality) modem. > >Is there another brand that someone knows of? > > I use Practical Peripherals 2400 baud, Hayes compatible. I've had them for the > last eight months. No trouble whatsoever. Cost me around 175.00 each, plus > tax. > I've had one for about 6 months. It's on 24 hrs a day, and playing with data about 10% of the time. No trouble whatsoever. pjm Disclaimer: I'm illiterate and have absolutely no idea where these words came from.
thad@cup.portal.com (09/19/88)
Whoa! Someone just mentioned Practical Peripherals' modems. A customer of mine attempted to use those with a "special" dialback unit I manufacture, and it became very clear very quickly that modem is "Hayes"(tm) compatible ONLY in that it recognizes "Hayes" commands. It does NOT function as does a Hayes (and other fine modems) when one wishes full modem control (via DTR). This "problem" is symptomatic of MANY what I call "toy" modems. To be fair, the modem DOES function fine AS A MODEM. It is NOT "compatible" re: its operation re: DTR, DSR and DCD and re-init'ing to a known state. After many years in this business, it's clear there are three types of modems one can find: 1. industrial quality. solid, dependable, reliable, consistent. 2. consumer quality. not designed for 24 hrs/day use, but otherwise generally reliable and "compatible" with de facto ACU protocols 3. pure shit (sorry if use of this word offends, but even I (for whom most callers to my BBS and other services must consult dictionaries to fathom the meaning of words I use) cannot conjure up a better description! :-) These categories are "generally" delimited by price, but I've seen some excellent modems (2400 baud) under $200, and I've seen junk at $400-$500. Over the past 5 years I've managed to test some 200+ different modems with my products. Most modems perform acceptably, but there are some that do not. There was even a CTS 2424ADH that did "weird" things with the DSR and DCD signals after one would drop DTR. In MY opinion, the Signalman modems fall into category 3 (above). Again, in MY opinion, I'm surprised the FTC hasn't stepped in to stop all the bogus claims of "Hayes (tm) compatibility. I'd hoped the marketplace would weed out the irregulars, but such is not happening. I'm all for LESS government regulation, etc., but perhaps SOMEONE should come to the aid of the consumer (like the FTC did re: consumer audio amplifier power ratings and FM receiver sensitivity about a decade ago). I throw junk (both hardware and software (disks)) out the window and over the fence. My fence collapsed last year! :-) Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad] P.S. My neighbor chipped in 50-50 for a new fence. 'Spose he found a use for all the "junk". :-)
RAF@NIHCU.BITNET ("Roger Fajman") (09/20/88)
> Unfortunately, most of the PC-oriented low-cost modems are trash. > The one really good modem I have found in the low end market is the > Racal-Vadic 1200V. It's not fancy, but it supports all the RS232 > signals correctly, does well on noisy lines, and these days it should > be very inexpensive. (I paid $200 apiece for them about three years > ago.) I agree with you about the general quality level of low cost modems. I would put the 1200V in that category too, however. I tried it when it came out a few years ago and found that it would not transmit break signals and lost its option settings when powered off.
jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Pierre Radley) (09/22/88)
In article <9261@cup.portal.com> thad@cup.portal.com writes: >... >Someone just mentioned Practical Peripherals' modems. > >A customer of mine attempted to use those with a "special" dialback unit >I manufacture, and it became very clear very quickly that modem is "Hayes"(tm) >compatible ONLY in that it recognizes "Hayes" commands. It does NOT function >as does a Hayes (and other fine modems) when one wishes full modem control >(via DTR). This "problem" is symptomatic of MANY what I call "toy" modems. > >To be fair, the modem DOES function fine AS A MODEM. > >It is NOT "compatible" re: its operation re: DTR, DSR and DCD and re-init'ing >to a known state. >... I'm the one who brought up the Pratical Peripherals' modem. I use them for dialing in or out on the same line. I certainly have paid attention to the necessary DCD and DTR settings, and the modems behave just as they should with regard to those signals. Having once set those up, and written the settings to non-volatile memory, I haven't had to touch them. It does track the telephone line for a carrier, and asserts DCD to the computer IFF a carrier is present. It does track the DTR line from the computer, and takes the desired action when there's an on-off DTR transition. So what were you trying that didn't work out: what was your customer's different experience? -- Time is nature's way of Jean-Pierre Radley making sure that everything ..!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!jpr doesn't happen all at once. CIS: 76120,1341
ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (09/24/88)
You have to pay attention. Most consumer modems come shipped the the 'ignore the modem signals' strap in because most people just plug them into a PC or a terminal with a normal cable and don't know what RS-232 is.
thad@cup.portal.com (09/25/88)
Re: the Practical Peripherals' modem (don't recall if it was the 2400 baud) They connected it to a MicroVax. Upon answering a phone, the modem would send "RING", "CONNECT" and other nice things to the VMS' login prompt. Needless to say, a lot of confusion ensued. Solution was to disable all response codes. Fine. Worked OK for people calling in, and the login sequence was no longer perturbed. Now, for calling out, the modem didn't respond with result codes, so the outdialling software had no idea of call progress, status, etc. Hayes modems would return to a known state upon drop of DTR, and could be programmed by the outdialling software as required. All works fine. The Practical Peripherals modem did NOT act the same as the Hayes; thus, it is NOT Hayes compatible. They finally bought a Multitech and all problems vanished. Thad Floryan [thad@cup.portal.com (OR) ...!sun!portal!cup.portal.com!thad]
tboutell@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Thomas B Boutell) (10/09/88)
I find it unlikely that RV could have produced a unit that unreliable, as I've had the pleasant experience of using two earlier 1200- baud Racal Vadic modems, both of which gave the clearest connections I've ever seen at any baud rate. These models predated the Hayes standard, though, even though one was of the "intelligent" variety. It's possible that they've gone to the usual chip sources for their Hayes- compatible models.
aad@stpstn.UUCP (Anthony A. Datri) (10/17/88)
In article <2033@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU> tboutell@vax1.acs.udel.EDU (Thomas B Boutell) writes: >I find it unlikely that RV could have produced a unit that unreliable, as I've had experience with around a dozen Vadic modems, 10 of them in a rack unit, and three of them the 2400 baud Hayesish variety, and most of the failures I've seen have been power-supply related. Perhaps if they woke up and put some recent technological advances, like ON/OFF switches, on their modems I'd have a better feeling towards them. -- @disclaimer(Any concepts or opinions above are entirely mine, not those of my employer, my GIGI, or my 11/34) beak is@>beak is not Anthony A. Datri @SysAdmin(Stepstone Corporation) stpstn!aad