aad#@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Anthony A. Datri) (05/18/87)
The recent issue of PC (?) that reviewed 80 or so modems reviewed the THE modem available through pc-network, but didn't include it in their lovely bar graphs. There was an ad in the back that advertised THE 2400 for $220 (my sister belongs) and the Qubie for something like $249. Any experiences with either of these? The "editors choices," narrow-minded as they are, tended to be internal (to the PC) modems, although the review of the THE modem seemed to speak well of it. They didn't review the Qubie, which seems like a relatively large oversight, given the bizarre little modems that they did review.
jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) (05/19/87)
most of the comments lately on 2400 baud modems has been related to line quality, meeting standards, price, hardware reliability. Personally, the aspect I would be most interested in is whether or not people have used these modems with UUCP at 2400. I do not have the luxury of, for example, Ultrix's acucap capabilities, so any 2400 modem I get MUST be 100% Hayes Smartmodem2400 compatible, since I can't change what uucico expects back from the modem. (don't have source code either). If any you net.landers post future observations on 2400 modems, please indicate whether you have used them for dialing out with uucico, and if so, whether you had to tweak anything for Hayes compatibility. Thanks. -- -- Jim Morton, APPLiX Inc., Westboro, MA UUCP: ...seismo!harvard!halleys!applix!jim
dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) (05/20/87)
In article <514@applix.UUCP> jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) writes: >I do not >have the luxury of, for example, Ultrix's acucap capabilities, so >any 2400 modem I get MUST be 100% Hayes Smartmodem2400 compatible, >since I can't change what uucico expects back from the modem. I don't think the right way to talk to a modem is to compile its responses into code. Rather than fool around with that I simply put the responses into my L.sys expect-send scripts. It sounds like a hassle, and you do have to repeat some common code for each system you call, but (a) it's far easier to debug a UUCP transaction and (b) you can try out different modem parameters very easily. Just tell your system it's a direct connection ("DIR" does that for me). A sample is shown below to call system "icallu", with names and addresses changed to protect the innocent. Note special conventions: PAUSE1 pauses 1 second; "~03" sets the expect timeout to 3 seconds; "ABORT CARRIER" will abort the dialling attempt any time the string "CARRIER" (as in "NO CARRIER" etc.) is seen before the connection completes. Note that the following script not only resets the modem, sets parameters, and makes the call, but also sends a control D if it doesn't see the "login:" string, just in case the other end is somehow in uppercase-only mode (happened to me locally because a stupid modem I was using insisted on printing "CONNECT 1200" on incoming calls, making UNIX think somebody called CONNECT was trying to log in). icallu Any1800-0600 DIR 2400 ttyd1 "" ATQ0V1 OK~05-ATQ0V1-OK~05 PAUSE1 \ "" ATH \ OK~03-ATH-OK~03-ATH ATDT1-800-555-1212 CONNECT~60 PAUSE1 \ "" "" "" "" ABORT CARRIER ogin~45--ogin~45-\004-ogin~45 \ "" login~45--login~45--login~45 uucp \ ssword~40 feedme One possible limitation is the length of the expect-send script allowed by your UUCP. I have been able to write expect-send scripts to call the local Telenet node, connect into a PC-Pursuit modem (give it two tries), escape back to the @ prompt, turn off the <cr>@<cr> escape sequence and speed up network timeout, connect back to the PC-Pursuit modem, then dial the number (give it two tries). It's hard to decipher when you are done with it, but it can be made to work. Never let Hayes compatibilty stand in your way! -- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
pre1@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Grant A. Prellwitz) (05/21/87)
In article <8UflKJy00WAFReo0=t@andrew.cmu.edu> aad#@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Anthony A. Datri) writes: > >The recent issue of PC (?) that reviewed 80 or so modems reviewed the THE >modem available through pc-network, but didn't include it in their lovely bar >graphs. There was an ad in the back that advertised THE 2400 for $220 (my >sister belongs) and the Qubie for something like $249. >[...] Just for your information, PC-Network filed for Chapter 11 reorganization this week. Note that this does not mean that they are out of business, just that those who ordered mdse before about the beginning of the month may have trouble getting anything for their money (unless they paid by credit card). They may very well rebound from this, but I'd wait a little while before ordering anything from them except my credit card. Note that while THE and Access are owned and/or managed by the same people, they are NOT affected by the action. This information comes from the Chicago Tribune. Disclaimer: I am neither aa lawyer nor an economist. The above opinions are just that. I accept no responsibility for the use you make of them. -- =====================Grant Prellwitz========================== !ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!pre1 pre1@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP 76474,2121 (CIS) pre1 (BIX) The DOCTOR didn't need a funny line, why do I?
csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) (05/22/87)
In article <680@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >I don't think the right way to talk to a modem is to compile its >responses into code. Writing the modem dialer in C has many advantages over L.sys chat scripts, acucap entries, and Dialers chat scripts: you can parse multiple responses from the modem; you can provide detailed logs of modem failures; call progress monitoring can be supported; timeouts can be finely controlled. The dialers facility in the next release of 4.3BSD UUCP will provide both the equivalent of the HDB dialers scripts, and the ability for binary-only sites to add C-coded dialers. That's the best of all worlds. >Rather than fool around with that I simply put >the responses into my L.sys expect-send scripts. This is usable only if you have a small number of sites in your L.sys file (we have 178, and some sites have over a thousand) and if you only have one modem (we have six, including four incompatible types that could not be dialed from the same expect/send script). <csg>
ben@catnip.UUCP (05/27/87)
In article <680@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >In article <514@applix.UUCP> jim@applix.UUCP (Jim Morton) writes: >>I do not >>have the luxury of, for example, Ultrix's acucap capabilities, so >>any 2400 modem I get MUST be 100% Hayes Smartmodem2400 compatible, >>since I can't change what uucico expects back from the modem. > >I don't think the right way to talk to a modem is to compile its >responses into code. Rather than fool around with that I simply put >the responses into my L.sys expect-send scripts. >.. >One possible limitation is the length of the expect-send script allowed >by your UUCP. I think a more serious one is that many uucicos will time out before a long distance connection is established. I don't know whether there is a any standard for the timeout, but I have witnessed an older version of Microport Unix for the AT that wouldn't wait long enough for a long distance connection, and would drop DTR just as the distant modem picked up the line. -- Ben Broder {ihnp4,decvax} !hjuxa!catnip!ben {houxm,clyde}/
SNELSON@STL-HOST1.ARPA.UUCP (05/28/87)
THE STANDARD I HAVE UNDERSTOOD FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS IS 27 SECONDS BEFORE A MODEM TIMES IT SELF OUT AND DROPS THE LINE ON CONNECT ATTEMPTS. I THINK THIS WAS BASED ON AT&T OR VADIC OR BOTH DECIDING IT TOOK ABOUT THAT TIME WHEN THE OLD ACOUTICAL COUPLERS WERE USED TO GET A HANDLET INTO THE CUPS, ETC. STEVE
aad+@andrew.cmu.edu (Anthony A. Datri) (05/29/87)
please stop shouting