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 219-289-0286grr@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.
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>