caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) (04/22/91)
PC Magazine Communications Software Testing Irregularities The April 30 1991 issue of PC Magazine features reviews of 17 async communications programs that allegedly support ZMODEM and 16550A FIFO UARTs. This issue has prompted a number of messages questioning the published test results and the procedures used to generate them. PC Magazine sent files from a 25 MHz 386 computer to an 8 MHz IBM PC/AT upgraded with the 16550A UART chip. Speeds to 115200 bps were used with hardware handshaking. Software handshaking is normally used with high speed direct computer to computer connections, but this was disabled. PC Magazine reported that Professional-YAM generated so many errors and retries at 115k that throughput fell sharply. Randol N. Tigrett, PC Magazine LAN Labs Project Leader, claims both he and Sara Parker attempted to contact Omen Technology about these errors. While Omen had numerous contacts with PC Magazine at the time concerning lists of features, there is no recall of being contacted about technical problems and/or error messages during the performance tests. None of the FAX messages Omen received from PC Magazine mentioned any technical problems, and no electronic mail messages were received. Scott McGinnis, author of COM-AND, another program that suffered from improper PC Magazine test conditions, was not contacted either. PC Magazine mentioned in a sidebar that Professional-YAM with software flow control transferred files faster than all other programs tested. PC Magazine has refused to disclose these performance figures, either in the original article or in response to repeated interrogatives to the test director on PC Magazine's CompuServe bulletin board. PC Magazine's refusal to disclose these figures is troubling: was this information covered up because the numbers would have raised questions about the test procedures, or because the information would have refuted PC Magazine's speed rankings? PC Magazine's refusal to divulge the text of the error messages and other vital information about the tests forced me to prepare this rebuttal. My tests with a variety of configurations (shown below) strongly suggest that failure to issue a "handshake on" command was the one and only cause of Professional-YAM's failure to replicate its first-place performance with hardware flow control. Pro-YAM Tests (not shown here) show no speed difference between hardware and software flow control in direct connect tests at 115 kbps. The cause of Professional-YAM's substandard performance was improper setup. In my tests, Professional-YAM operated without error at 115 kbps, outperforming ProComm Plus 2.0 by at least 28 per cent. I invite readers to repeat these tests themselves. Copies of the test files are available on TeleGodzilla. Copies of Omen's ZCOMM shareware communications program may be used for these tests. The ProComm Plus 2.0 transfer failures result from a ProComm bug that disables input on 16550A/AF chips. This bug appeared in a variety of terminal emulation and file transfer tests on a variety of machines. Reports of similar problems at speeds as low as 2400 bps have appeared on bulletin boards. The purpose of this paper is not to single out ProComm for crticism. ProComm Plus 2.0 was tested here because PC Magazine's flawed tests ranked it the fastest. An IBM AT modified for 8 MHz clock speed is the only configuration I have tested that has not exhibited problems with ProComm Plus 2.0 disabling 16550A serial input. Just replacing the AT's CPU clock crystal with the stock IBM part causes problems. PC Magazine has not explained their choice of such an antique as the sole receiving test machine for tests at speeds at least three times faster than today's fastest available dialup modem. The tests are, however, relevant to direct connect transfers between PC's. (Simple cables and software flow control are the norm for this application.) To be useful in such applications, programs should be able to transfer entire directory trees with a single command and maintain the most recent revision of a file on both machines. Unfortunately, no mention is made of which programs have these essential ZMODEM features. A further disappointment is the failure of PC Magazine to test ZMODEM compression with their "compressible file". The results show, as the reader can easily verify, that ZMODEM compression is quite effective on suitable files. I was also disappointed that no mention was made of the programs that violate the ZMODEM protocol description in one or more respects. The sine qua non of a file transfer protocol for async dial-up applications is its performance and integrity under noisy line conditions. How long must we wait for this critical facet to be tested? Since PC Magazine's prose indicates raw speed is a prime determinant of a program's quality, it is incumbent on the reviewers to get their facts right. As the developer of the ZMODEM protocol, and as the author of a program that was not given a chance to perform up to standard, I request that PC Magazine repeat these tests under suitable supervision. If the results or performance rankings of correctly executed tests are different from the published values and graphics, I request that corrected test results, graphics, and associated review comments be properly publicized and published without undue delay. Chuck Forsberg, Omen Technology INC April 22, 1991 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The configurations described here duplicate PC Magazine's published test configurations as closely as possible. Source file: b17mh.gif, 356542 bytes, available on CompuServe and TeleGodzilla (503-621-3746 24/96). A similarly sized ZIPfile may be used without affecting the results. Transfers used b17mh.gif except as noted. Compressible file: RTTYPIX, 343851 bytes, a concatenation of the 30 line printer prcture (RTTY art) files in my collection. The source files chosen were long enough to allow accurate manual timing with a stopwatch. They were stored on ramdisk. Transfers completed without errors except as noted. Sending machine: Micronics 33 MHz, 128k cache or Intel 386 ISBC 18 MHz Receiving Machine: IBM 5170 PC-AT s/n00212305170 modified for 8 MHz, replacement HD and controller (Coretest 2.7 performance index: 1.890), CGA clone, Hayes ESP board. Cabling: Special null modem connection with TR/DCD and RTS/CTS crossovers Commands: speed 115200 handshake on sz -ym d:b17mh.gif -or- speed 115200 handshake on sz -yZ d:rttypix speed 115200 handshake on t (ProComm set for ZMODEM auto d/l, crash recovery off) Professional-YAM to Professional-YAM: @115kbps 50 50 50 71 kbps average Professional-YAM to Professional-YAM 17.62: @115kbps 53 53 67 kbps Professional-YAM to DSZ.EXE pD16384 @115 kbps 50 50 50 71 kbps av Professional-YAM to DSZ.COM @115 kbps 82 82 83 43 kbps av Professional-YAM to ProComm Plus 2.0: @115kbps 64 64 64 56 kbps av As Above, to IBM PC-AT at 6 MHz (stock IBM crystal), Hayes ESP board. Professional-YAM to Professional-YAM: @115kbps 67 67 67 53 kbps average Compressible file: 38 38 90.5 kbps ZMODEM Compressible file: 80 43 kbps Kermit Professional-YAM to Professional-YAM 17.62: @115kbps 74 71 72 49 kbps av Professional-YAM to DSZ.COM @115 kbps 112 112 32 kbps av Professional-YAM to ProComm Plus 2.0: @115kbps FAILED FAILED Compressible file: FAILED Sending to Everex System 3000 386 16 MHz 64k cache, 16550A Professional-YAM to Professional-YAM @115kbps 35 35 102 kbps Compressible file: 19 19 19 181 kbps ZMODEM Compressible file: 48 72 kbps Kermit Professional-YAM to Professional-YAM 17.62: @115kbps 48 48 74 kbps Professional-YAM to Professional-YAM 17.62: @38.4 kbps 110 110 3241 cps Professional-YAM to ProComm Plus 2.0: @115kbps 56 55 55 64 kbps Compressible file FAILED FAIL ZMODEM Compressible file 53 65 kbps Kermit Professional-YAM to ProComm Plus 2.0: @38.4 kbps 120 2971 cps ********************************************************* * NOTE: A 16550A/16550AF must be used!! * ********************************************************* Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX ...!tektronix!reed!omen!caf Author of YMODEM, ZMODEM, Professional-YAM, ZCOMM, and DSZ Omen Technology Inc "The High Reliability Software" 17505-V NW Sauvie IS RD Portland OR 97231 503-621-3406 TeleGodzilla:621-3746 FAX:621-3735 CIS:70007,2304 Genie:CAF
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (04/24/91)
caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > PC Magazine Communications Software Testing Irregularities [woes of testing deleted...] Chuck, Its real simple. Start taking out huge, multi-page mega$thousand$ dollar ads, and you're reviews will instantly, mysteriously, shoot up to A-numero-uno. Its one reason I stopped getting just about every PC-<whatever> magazine. MD PS: How do I get a new copy of PUTSNP? I lost my original disk. -- -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) (04/24/91)
In <89@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: >The April 30 1991 issue of PC Magazine features reviews of 17 >async communications programs that allegedly support ZMODEM and >16550A FIFO UARTs. This issue has prompted a number of messages >questioning the published test results and the procedures used >to generate them. Unfortunately I was not a regular reader of the Net news when PC Magazine ran a test of V.32 modems. In this test the Telebit modem failed miserably. I hear from historical accounts ;-) that the noise on the Net was outrageous after this. Our agency was considering buying some Telebit T2500's at the time and thought, since they tested fine for use, that the test must have been flawed. We talked to Telebit and got a copy that an official was sending to PC Magazine, but I don't recall seing the letter in the mag. We did buy the T2500's and are happy with them so far. What I would like to know is: Was there any "official" response from PC magazine or Telebit on the Net? and, if there was, Would someone please E-mail it to me? >Randol N. Tigrett, PC Magazine LAN Labs Project Leader, claims >both he and Sara Parker attempted to contact Omen Technology >about these errors. While Omen had numerous contacts with PC >Magazine at the time concerning lists of features, there is no >recall of being contacted about technical problems and/or error >messages during the performance tests. None of the FAX messages >Omen received from PC Magazine mentioned any technical problems, >and no electronic mail messages were received. Scott McGinnis, >author of COM-AND, another program that suffered from improper >PC Magazine test conditions, was not contacted either. Yes, I think they claimed to have contacted Telebit at the time of the modem tests and had not gotten sufficient help setting up the modem. Some of our people here have talked to Telebit and the distributor form which we purchased the modems and had no reports of trouble or unresponsiveness from either. Maybe PC Magazine staff are just not nice people to deal with ;-). -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov -- -- Charles "Chip" Yamasaki chip@oshcomm.osha.gov
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr24.033643.3628@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >Its real simple. Start taking out huge, multi-page mega$thousand$ >dollar ads, and you're reviews will instantly, mysteriously, shoot >up to A-numero-uno. That's unfair. I've had two very positive reviews in PC Magazine without every buying more than a classified at the back, as well as good reviews in other Z-D magazines. These guys are not perfect, perhaps even far from perfect, but I don't think there's any actual evil scheming. In most big magazines the editorial people do not associate much with the ad sales people, and find them boring. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
davidg%aegis.or.jp@kyoto-u.ac.jp (Dave McLane) (04/25/91)
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: > > PC Magazine Communications Software Testing Irregularities > [woes of testing deleted...] > > Chuck, > > Its real simple. Start taking out huge, multi-page mega$thousand$ > dollar ads, and you're reviews will instantly, mysteriously, shoot > up to A-numero-uno. > > Its one reason I stopped getting just about every PC-<whatever> > magazine. I was also a bit taken aback by the PC-Magazine review ... until I realized their basic assumption: the potential user was a company who wanted a pair of modems to link two sites. Period. They were not talking about a modem that would let somebody link to as many other modems/people as possible. According to a fairly recent survey, PC Magazine says that most of it's readers are just that: people at companies. Their "reviews" are *not* for networkers.... I keep getting it as I run DOS programs (under DOS and under VP/ix) and like to keep up with the latest versions, etc., but their "reviews" are pretty worthless for what I'm doing.... --Dave
brian@telebit.com (Brian Lloyd) (04/25/91)
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: >Our agency was considering buying some Telebit T2500's at the time and >thought, since they tested fine for use, that the test must have been >flawed. We talked to Telebit and got a copy that an official was >sending to PC Magazine, but I don't recall seing the letter in the mag. >We did buy the T2500's and are happy with them so far. >What I would like to know is: > Was there any "official" response from PC magazine or Telebit on the > Net? and, if there was, > Would someone please E-mail it to me? No, there was no response from Telebit on the Net. We have only recently repaired netnews so that we can post (no I won't discuss it -- we are sufficiently embarrassed and contrite). If there is sufficient interest I will get the text of the "rebuttal" and post it here to this newsgroup. For those of you who have been wondering where Telebit has been hiding for the last year, rest assured that we are back and reading comp.dcom.modems with great interest. Greg Andrews, one of our resident modem wizards, reads this newsgroup religiously. I read but keep my mouth shut most of the time because he understands the modems better than I do. On the other hand, I am the architect for the NetBlazer so I will probably inject my $0.02-worth when the topic rolls around to SLIP or PPP over modems. One last piece of info, email to modems@telebit.com is working properly again. Feel free to post there for assistance with our modems. Feel free to post to support@telebit.com or netblazer@telebit.com for NetBlazer info/assistance. Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Telebit Corporation Network Systems Architect 1315 Chesapeake Terrace brian@napa.telebit.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1100 voice (408) 745-3103 FAX (408) 734-3333 -- Brian Lloyd, WB6RQN Telebit Corporation Network Systems Architect 1315 Chesapeake Terrace brian@napa.telebit.com Sunnyvale, CA 94089-1100 voice (408) 745-3103 FAX (408) 734-3333
rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr24.184543.27339@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > That's unfair. I've had two very positive reviews in PC > Magazine without every buying more than a classified at > the back, as well as good reviews in other Z-D magazines. It is a policy at a magazine where I write that advertisers specifically do *not* get better reviews, and further, a full-page color ad each month does not have any affect on whether or not a product is reviewed. > In most big magazines the editorial people do not > associate much with the ad sales people, and find them > boring. In a lot of big magazines, the ad sales people are not even located in the same state with the editorial people. To say nothing of the fact that except for a few core people, most of the editorial people are scattered around the country. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@rfengr.com ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris serenity bbs 259-7757
mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (04/26/91)
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >That's unfair. I've had two very positive reviews in PC Magazine without >every buying more than a classified at the back, as well as good reviews in >other Z-D magazines. I'm sorry, but over the past years I've seen too much evidence to support the opinion that $big ads$ result in good reviews. If you've ever noticed, all their big advertisers get the glowing reviews. Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule, but it seems to be more of the norm than the exception when dealing with PC-anything. After all, think the company is going to give a shitty review to the advertiser who just spent $serious bux$ on several multi-page spreads for several months? No more than you would call one of your clients and tell him/her that their product sucks. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / These Opinions Generally -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / Represent The Opinions Of -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 / My Company...
tau-ceti (04/26/91)
chip@osh3.OSHA.GOV (Chip Yamasaki) writes: > In <89@omen.UUCP> caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > > >The April 30 1991 issue of PC Magazine features reviews of 17 > >async communications programs that allegedly support ZMODEM and > >16550A FIFO UARTs. This issue has prompted a number of messages > >questioning the published test results and the procedures used > >to generate them. > While working for the State of Washington, we were using the reviews of certain magazines as basic info to form opinions on which network software and hardware we were going to consider. PC Magazine had just done a review of LANS and we read their findings with interest. The data turned out to be what could only be described as lousy approximations.. their conclusions weren't verified by installations of some of the products they reviewed. Since that happened, it has been my opinion that the folks at PC Mag are merely people with no great technical savvy, only a savvy for great technical jargon. Almost everyone knows that the first setup of something like a LAN is not going to have the efficiency of a system which has been tweaked and tuned to deal with the specifics of its use. It's spooky the way a magazine can bum-rap a product by virtue of its own misunderstanding of the technology. It is unfortunate that the readership believes that because it's a magazine about computers, that all involved in the magazine are experts. They aren't --especially in PC's case. I further suspect that the individual who posted the comment that 'megabucks in advertising dollars = great reviews' may have a valid point as well. Bob Kirkpatrick Dog Ear'd Systems, Spokane WA "Upgrading equipment is nice, but upgrading use is less expensive."
garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) (04/26/91)
By the same token, are you going to spend "$serious bux$" on an ad in a magazine that just gave you a lousy review? -Gary -- |Gary Brainin |BITNET: garygm%portia.stanford.edu@stanford| |garygm@portia.stanford.edu |UUCP: ...decwrl!portia.stanford.edu!garygm | |"...the right to be let alone-the most comprehensive of rights and the right | |most valued by civilized men." Olmstead v. U.S. (Brandeis, J., dissenting)|
dodgeT@batman.moravian.EDU (Mustapha Mond) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr26.031500.7938@anomaly.sbs.com>, mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: > brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: > > If you've ever noticed, all their big advertisers get the glowing reviews. > Of course, there are some exceptions to this rule, but it seems to be > more of the norm than the exception when dealing with PC-anything. > Then there's the possiblity that the people with the dough have such because they put out a good product...Gateway computers, for example. I know of several persons w/a Gateway and they are satisified w/'em. Don't break down, that's fo' sho'. BTW, i recently ended a subscription to PC MAG because they had too many bloody adds, too many reviews of stuff i'll not use...liked Zachman's articles, though. > -- Michael P. Deignan / Since I *OWN* SBS.COM, -- Timothy Dodge | 221 North 16th Street, Easton Pa, 18042 | 258-3021 (6733)Me Read my Lips: |CSNET/INTERNET....dodgeT@moravian.edu |#include<dat_claimah.h> No new Vaxes |A penny saved *might* be polka-dotted when you're not looking. Logging into life in the worst city in the USA -- Cleveland, eat your heart out
ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) (04/28/91)
In article <1991Apr26.162746.14355@leland.Stanford.EDU>, garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes:
: By the same token, are you going to spend "$serious bux$" on an ad
: in a magazine that just gave you a lousy review?
By the same token, who is going to advertise in a magazine that no one
buys because they know the editors will sell out to whoever advertises
in their magazine?
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to ken@hertz.njit.edu until this machine properly recieves mail.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNGong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) (04/30/91)
From <1991Apr24.033643.3628@anomaly.sbs.com>, by mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan): > caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > > >> PC Magazine Communications Software Testing Irregularities > [woes of testing deleted...] > > Chuck, > > Its real simple. Start taking out huge, multi-page mega$thousand$ > dollar ads, and you're reviews will instantly, mysteriously, shoot > up to A-numero-uno. > > Its one reason I stopped getting just about every PC-<whatever> > magazine. From what I heard, I have to agree. I was given a couple of stories first-hand that because they are small companies that cannot afford thousand dollar ads in PC Mag (that's what it cost in PC Mag, I was told), their hardware was not reviewed. After that, I stopped picking up PC Mag at the newsstand and opted for Computer Shoppers instead. It was a present surprise! The very-thick Computer Shoppers has many things that PC Mag does not have. It was like moving from a communist country where everything is censored to the USA, where most everything is allowed in print. Most of all, you find all kinds of cheap products (hardware mostly) that does not get into PC Mag for whatever reason. Wake up, America!
gundrum@svc.portal.com (04/30/91)
>I'm sorry, but over the past years I've seen too much evidence to support >the opinion that $big ads$ result in good reviews. Could it be that good reviews translate to more sales, which then supports bigger ads? No, that would kill the conspiracy theory. It must be the other way 'round. :-) -- _______________________________________________________________________ Any statements made by this account are strictly based on heresay and should be assumed to have no intelligence behind them. (No, that does not mean they have the approval of management.) gundrum@svc.portal.com
roger@wet.UUCP (Roger Niclas) (04/30/91)
garygm@leland.Stanford.EDU (Gary Brainin) writes: > > By the same token, are you going to spend "$serious bux$" on an ad > in a magazine that just gave you a lousy review? > > -Gary You will if the magazine's as influential as most advertisers believe PC to be. Read the "Letters to the Editor" columns in nearly any major magazine, and you'll see all sorts of letters from advertisers squealing that they were "unfairly" treated in a review. Oddly, however, there _are_ some advertisers who *mistakenly* believe that their products won't be reviewed in PC if they don't advertise, or that they'll be reviewed poorly. They *are* wrong about that, but I suppose it's their perception that dictates their behavior, rather than the realities. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Email: roger@wet.UUCP | * * alt: rogerd@well | witty remark designed to exhibit intellect goes * * CompuServe: 72730,1010 | here *
chuck@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (charles bridgeland) (04/30/91)
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes: >told), their hardware was not reviewed. After that, I stopped picking >up PC Mag at the newsstand and opted for Computer Shoppers instead. >It was a present surprise! The very-thick Computer Shoppers has many >things that PC Mag does not have. It was like moving from a >communist country where everything is censored to the USA, where most >everything is allowed in print. Most of all, you find all kinds of >cheap products (hardware mostly) that does not get into PC Mag for >whatever reason. >Wake up, America! ---------------------------------------------- _if_ you're into ms-dos machines. Computer Shopper is moving steadily into -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- chuck bridgeland---anarchoRepublican "one thing about a police state, you can always find the police" l. neil smith chuck@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu hire me so I can quit this pit. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu (David Lesher) (05/02/91)
others said: >> After that, I stopped picking >up PC Mag at the newsstand and opted for Computer Shoppers instead. Surprise..... Guess who Patch sold Computer Shopper to? -- A host is a host from coast to coast.....wb8foz@mthvax.cs.miami.edu & no one will talk to a host that's close............(305) 255-RTFM Unless the host (that isn't close)......................pob 570-335 is busy, hung or dead....................................33257-0335
roger@wet.UUCP (Roger Niclas) (05/08/91)
ong@d.cs.okstate.edu (ONG ENG TENG) writes: > From <1991Apr24.033643.3628@anomaly.sbs.com>, by mpd@anomaly.sbs.com > (Michael P. Deignan): > > caf@omen.UUCP (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX) writes: > > > >> PC Magazine Communications Software Testing Irregularities > > [woes of testing deleted...] > > > > Its real simple. Start taking out huge, multi-page mega$thousand$ > > up PC Mag at the newsstand and opted for Computer Shoppers instead. > > things that PC Mag does not have. It was like moving from a > communist country where everything is censored to the USA, where most > everything is allowed in print. Most of all, you find all kinds of > cheap products (hardware mostly) that does not get into PC Mag for > Wake up, America! It may come as a surprise to you, then, to find out that both PC Magazine and Computer Shopper are Ziff-Davis publications. In fact, Computer Shopper's new "competitor," PC Sources is also a Z-D publication. 'Shopper' can be expected to increase their page rate soon, and 'Sources' will take the overflow of advertisers who opt out of the new, higher-priced rate structure. No magazine can review everything, and sometimes the decisions are made on relatively superficial grounds, but sometimes they're because the product just doesn't fit into the scheduled categories and doesn't appear to be the "killer app" that would warrant a stand-alone review. Other times it's because stuff submitted for review arrives with such poor docs that the reviewers can't be sure they'll even know how it's supposed to work. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Email: roger@wet.UUCP | * * alt: rogerd@well | witty remark designed to exhibit intellect goes * * CompuServe: 72730,1010 | here *