HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V32bis with V42bis Screen Updates
From: Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 10:55:22 GMT
Organization: Actrix Information Exchange
Keywords: V32bis V42bis

In article <Bs6DCo.F4n@animal.gcs.co.nz> lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu) writes:
> I just got a V32bis modem with V42bis. I call up a few local BBS and
> have been able to get >1600cps download speeds with zip files. This
> sounds about the norm. However I was under the impression that with
> text files, I should with the V42bis compression get 38400 or better.
> Thus when I am reading stuff like News or Fidonet etc. the screen
> updates should be blindingly fast if both sides are doing compression.
> This does not happen. My screen updates (admittedly using ANSI
> graphics) seem more like 9600 speed. This is under DOS using PC+.
> What I am doing wrong or are my expectations incorrect.
> Thanks for the help.
> 
> Laurence Chiu

Hi Laurence

Try using Telix. It is blindingly fast under DOS or in an OS/2 DOS vdm. I
usually use TE/2, but I have noticed that Telix is actually faster with
screen updates......can't explain it - I just see it.
 
Steve

-- 
Steve Withers - Wellington, New Zealand | "But the glory kept shining
Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz         |  and bright in my eyes, 
withers_s@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz            |  And the stars going round in 
**** Happy user of OS/2 v2!! ****       |  my head." R. L. S.
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Why not PEP over cellular?
Date: 23 Jul 92 19:23:22 GMT
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

dwilliam@jabba.ess.harris.com (David Williams) writes:
>    Well, the problem is : How do you tell the difference between your 
>target telephone (the office machine) giving up and hanging up the line
>and the cellular link handing off to another cell?  Both involve service
>interruption.  Some cell handoffs can get really long, due to local 
>traffic and signal quality.

>    To make this work, you would have to have some way to tell the 
>difference between a loss of signal and a handoff, which the cell
>network does not provide (untill your call comes back, that is... :-)
>At least, I think that's true - anyone out there work for a cell-phone
>related business?  Anyway for a smart modem to tell the difference?

Yes, there most definitely is a handoff order.  If you don't get the
handoff order, you lose the call when the cell hands off and you
don't.  There could be a way for the phone to talk to the modem, but
it'd probably have to be designed for that, or all the smarts would
have to be in the modem.


>tended to get it confused).  Cell phone handoffs, in my experience, tend
>to have a good bit of line noise and hash added in.  Is this due to the
>fact that I've only used a cell phone in a poor service area?

I've never seen a handoff that didn't produce noise, if only a
clicking.  It's discontinuous - you get off one channel, tune to
another, then hop on that channel.


>How do cell phones do when they are presented with a large variety of
>excellent signals?

They usually don't pay attention to the other signals unless the
current one gets too weak, which makes sense.  You don't want to hand
off more than necessary.
-- 
Liberal: A Conservative who has just been arrested.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: kensaga@diku.dk (Kenneth Fribert)
Subject: Re: Supra Fax Modem (ROM version?)
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 1992 10:05:05 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

chapman@centerline.com (Scott Chapman, (Scott Chapman x233)) writes:

>I just got my Supra Fax Modem the other day (without software) and it has been
>working like a champ. No annoying speakers, good reliable connections (thus
>far). 


Well, I'm glad that I am not the only one with a working modem.
>I was wondering, how does one determine what rev their ROMs are?


Well, just issue the ATI3, that should give you the info

>Also, is it possible to get FAX software for it (from STF or others?)
Ask Greg Perry (Australia) about his GPFax, his address is  cbmaus!greg@cbmehq.commodore.com

>---
>                                  |
>                    Scott Chapman | chapman@centerline.com
>              CenterLine Software | (617) 498-3230
>                   10 Fawcett St. | (617) 868-6655 (FAX)
>              Cambridge, MA 02138 | (Centerline was formerly Saber Software)
>                                  |
-- 
|/                 Fido-net: 2:230/41.14    Phonenet: (+45) 31 743 455
|\enneth  Fribert  Snailnet: Nedertoften 39, 1tv,  Dk-2720 Vanloese, Denmark
System currently in use: Amiga 2000, GVP Series II, Quantum 105S, SupraFax v32b
                         10 mb ram, MultiVision2000
From: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Alan Gilbertson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Boom! You're Dead.
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 09:11:42 EDT
Organization: FidoNet node 1:3603/230 - CSFSO Telecomm, Clearwater FL

On <Jul 27 13:47>, Jack Petty writes:

 JP> I am always interested in market share estimates:
 JP> 1) What market are we talking about - the entire switched market,
 JP>                                       9600 and faster only,
 JP>                                       or perhaps both switched 
 JP> and
 JP>                                       non-switched modems?
 JP> 2) Is the market share measured in revenue or in number of units 
 JP> shipped? 3) What company or individual did the study?

Do I detect a note of cynicism here? :-)  The information comes from
Dataquest reports.  Dataquest uses estimated units shipped, converted
into sales.  The market in question is the entire modem market: slow,
fast, data terminal modems, PC modems, leased line modems, etc.  

Hayes' share increased from somewhere around 7.5% to about 9.6% from
1985 through 1990, according to the Dataquest figures, which are fairly
well regarded in the industry.  Compare this to the big players like 
Codex, UDS or Racal-Milgo, all of which own more than 10% of the market.

Companies such as Telebit, USR, etc., are way down there in the 
fractional to low-single-digit precentages.

--  
Internet: Alan.Gilbertson@f230.n3603.z1.FIDONET.ORG
UUCP: ...!myrddin!tct!psycho!230!Alan.Gilbertson
Note:psycho is a free gateway between Usenet & Fidonet. For info write to
     root@psycho.fidonet.org.
From: tnixon@hayes.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V.fast modems available?
Date: 24 Jul 92 13:26:28 GMT
Organization: Hayes Microcomputer Products, Norcross, GA

In article <1992Jul22.121201.6384@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com
(Andrew Loewenstern) writes: 

>>   Since V.fast hasn't yet been written (it's called "V.fast" because it 
>>hasn't yet been assigned a number, like V.32), I would not count on anyone 
>>selling genuine V.fast modems.
> 
> I think the CCITT will choose V.34...

I thought so too, but at the last meeting of Study Group XVII the 
leadership appeared to favor an entirely different number.  I think 
"V.93" (indicating the year of adoption, perhaps) would be 
distinctive, although it sounds too much like the nickname of a hard 
rock radio station...

-- 
Toby Nixon, Principal Engineer      | Voice   +1-404-840-9200  Telex 401243420
Hayes Microcomputer Products, Inc.  | Fax     +1-404-447-0178  CIS   70271,404
P.O. Box 105203                     | BBS     +1-404-446-6336  AT&T    !tnixon
Atlanta, Georgia  30348             | UUCP uunet!hayes!tnixon  Fido   1:114/15
USA                                 | Internet                tnixon@hayes.com
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:11339 comp.sys.amiga.datacomm:5439
From: barrett@aminet.uucp (Keith Barrett)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.amiga.datacomm
Subject: Supra problems & their BBS
Date: 25 Jul 92 13:13:56 GMT
Reply-To: barrett%aminet@nuconvex.com
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Organization: Waterbury USENET/UUCP
X-Copyright: (c) 1992 Keith Barrett; May be distributed freely, Not for sale
X-Disclaimer: Statements expressed are not representitive of any employer
X-NewsSoftware: XRN V6.17 Amiga UNIX SVR4


I have NEVER been able to connect to the Supra BBS, and I was
hoping to get answers to the following questions (perhaps someone
can post the answers for us here?):

1) Why can't people connect to the Supra BBS? What settings would give
you the best chance of connecting?

2) What are S registers S44, S49, and S50 for?

3) When are the new PROMS shipping? How are they going to handle the board
changes needed to address other problems?

4) I have the following problems -- are these being addressed:

	1. Performing a ATZ use to drop DTR/DSR on the old Supra 2400,
	   but doesn't on the new one. This made it easier for UNIX
	   and UUCP users because a DTR drop or ATZ would cause a dataset
	   disconnect - it no longer does. Please put this back!

	2. BUSY response is sooooo wrong it's not worth looking at. All of
	   the BUSY problems have already been posted here by others.

	3. When the phone is never answered, the modem returns "NO CARRIER".
	   It should return "NO ANSWER".

	4. I cannot get a connect to a ZOOM V.32/.42bis modem. I've tried
	   everything.

	5. WHY CAN'T I CONNECT TO THE BBS?! You'd think they'd at least
	   debug this before going public!

-kgb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
UUCP: nuconvex.com!aminet!barrett             Keep circulating the tapes - MST3k
DDN: barrett%aminet.uucp@decwrl.dec.com    // My life is my own - the prisoner
Alternate: barrett@pamsrc.enet.dec.com   \X/  Amiga 3000UX - The Next Generation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jheath@CERIS.Purdue.EDU (Jim Heath)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Toaster & 2 meg Agnes???
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:20:36 GMT
Organization: Center for Environmental and Regulatory Information Systems, Purdue University


I believe there was some mention of a compatibility problem with
3000s and toasters involving a couple of the custom chips.  I'm
thinking of getting the 2 meg Agnes for my 2000 (and a demo
toaster) and am concerned that that was the incompatibility, or
was it the other new chip (I cannot remember the name).
-- 
"Land of song, said the warrior bard,           Jim Heath
Though all the world betrays thee.
One sword, at least, thy rights shall guard, (The Minstrel Boy)
One faithful harp will praise thee."         (Thomas Moore)
From: randy@rls.UUCP (randy)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Supra v.32bis, Tr light on front panel
Date: 23 Jul 92 03:30:52 GMT
Organization: The Internet

ged@phantom.cs.hut.fi (Camillo S{rs) writes:
> In <10986@rls.UUCP> randy@rls.UUCP (Randall L. Smith) writes:
>> On my Supra v.32bis, the Tr light stays on all the time except on
>
> Your comm program probably configures the modem to ignore DTR. 

Its uucico on System V, but it's the best theory yet.  I'll look into it.

>> Supra is in xmit or recv, it too (along with the console) sends out a
>> husky beep.  Does anyone else have this strangeness?
>
> I suspect you have some shielding problems. Maybe the bell causes a
> voltage surge that is transmitted through ground to the Supra and its
> speaker? Check your shielding, if your ground varies it might cause
> serious problems some day (like power surges).

!!!

Or avoid things that cause ^G. :-)

Thanks for the thoughts!

- randy

uucp: randy@rls.uucp
bang: <backbone>!osu-cis!rls!randy
inet: rls!randy@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
note: Will be President for food.
From: ian.evans@bville.gts.org (Ian Evans)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Problems connecting USR Dual v32bis to Worldblazer
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:35:00 GMT
Reply-To: ian.evans@bville.gts.org (Ian Evans)
Organization: Baudeville BBS - Toronto, Canada 416-283-0114/6059* *v32bis/HST


BC>We do.  I think the key is to set S92=1 and follow the suggestion in
BC>the manual with regard to setting S7=60.  Also, if a site wants a PEP
BC>connect they should set S50=255 before dialing.

The USR Dual Standard has neither the s92 or s50 (at least they're
not listed in the extensive table of S registers.

CompuServe ID: 73117,545 UUCP: bville!ian.evans| Message created while
INTERNET:ian.evans@bville.gts.org              | basking in the joy of
OTHERS: ian.evans@canrem.com                   | living in Scarborough
.

 * DeLuxe2/386 1.25 #5896 * Support your local zoo.
                                                                                                                        
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: jtt@tct.com (John Tombs)
Subject: Re: Good cheap V.32bis?
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:59:18 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

In article <1992Jul22.030755.29981@equalizer.fps.com> billd@fps.com (Bill Davidson) writes:

>... what are the brands/
>models/prices/vendors of some good cheap V.32bis modems? 

I just turned in my Practical Peripherals, which didn't work reliably, for
a Zoom, which does (at least it did the first evening). Plus, the manual's
thicker.

Just one data point.



-- 
John Tombs at Teltronics/TCT        <jtt@tct.com>,     <uunet!myrddin!tct!jtt>
                     Real Modem Users Do It Internally.
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Modems, compression, and SLIP or PPP (was Re: Using Telebit PEP with SLIP)
Date: 22 Jul 92 20:13:50 GMT
Organization: RAND

In article <1992Jul22.171145.25307@angular.uucp> jas%angular.UUCP@ingres.com (Jim Shankland) writes:
>In article <BOB.92Jul21000352@volitans.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
>[Lots of interesting stuff, the upshot of which is:]
>
>>Right.  Use TurboPEP in links like Pakistan to Ecuador, but use
>>V.32bis in most of the USA.
>
>Thanks; that's very useful information.  Does anybody have any thoughts
>about SLIP with v.42bis and V-J header compression?  Does v.42bis
>eliminate the need for V-J header compression?  Or vice versa?
>Would it be a mistake to use both?  And what about PPP vs. SLIP?

No.  V-J header compression only affects TCP/IP's protocol-specific
information, which it compresses much more than any general compression
algorithm like V.42bis.  The latter will do a good job of compressing the
rest, if it is compressible.  So the two are complementary.

Some modems seem to have increased latency when V.42bis is used, so there
might be some specific applications where turning it off would increase
performance with such modems.  But generally V.42bis is a win with SLIP or
PPP.  When in doubt, try it both ways /with your particular application(s)/.
Simple benchmarks are useless in this case.

PPP has a higher "overhead" than SLIP, since it adds its own header and
checksum.  The checksumming and more robust framing is of only marginal
use when the connection is near-error-free, such as with V.42 or MNP4, and
does add a small amount of latency.  But there are other aspects of PPP
which makes it useful: it allows for better security and greater
flexibility for dialup use, and it allows for the selective escaping of
control characters (such as XON/XOFF)--quite useful when going through a
switch or in situations where hardware flow-control isn't possible.
And it supports non-IP protocols.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
From: chuck@edsi.plexus.COM (Chuck Tomasi)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: WB --> Hayes 2400 connection (RTS/CTS)
Date: 22 Jul 92 00:53:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: edsi.1992Jul22.005322.11909
Organization: Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton WI

System synopsis:
IBM PS/2 Model 55SX
DigiBoard MC/8 (non-intelligent serial board w/NS16550AFN UARTs)
Telebit T2500 (on the DigiBoard)
Telebit WorldBlazer (on the motherboard)
SCO Xenix 2.3.4 (w/HDB UUCP)

It seems I'm in a bit of a dilema with my high speed modems.  I ran into
this with the T2500 about a year ago and never really resolved it, now I
face it with the WorldBlazer.

If I use hardware flow control my high speed connections to other modems
work great (except my UUCP host.)  Don't ask why, but that is the way
people recommend it.  My only problem is that a generic Hayes 2400 modem
has problems with missing characters.  I can watch the WB's CTS light go
off as if it had stopped sending stuff, but the Hayes somehow looses
track and gets a messy screen.  This is easy to duplicate with a simple
ps -ef listing.

I've tried both modems on the DigiBoard and the motherboard without
significant difference.  Other than the typical suggestions of "get
yourself an intelligent serial board" which would break my already poor
budget, does anyone have any suggestions for helping out my 2400 bps
users who want to use the WB without destroying the other UUCP
connections I have which require hardware flow control?
-- 
Chuck Tomasi             |     "Mom, it's Data.  I heard you know
chuck@edsi.plexus.COM    |      how to turn him on." 
spool!cserver!edsi!chuck |                    -Wesley  "Datalore"
------<Enterprise Data Systems Incorporated, Appleton Wisconsin>------
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: V32bis with V42bis Screen Updates
Date: 30 Jul 1992 02:17:43 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu
Keywords: V32bis V42bis

lchiu@animal.gcs.co.nz (Laurence Chiu) writes:

>[...]updates should be blindingly fast if both sides are doing compression.
>This does not happen. My screen updates (admittedly using ANSI
>graphics) seem more like 9600 speed. This is under DOS using PC+.

There are two potential problems:

1.  The combination of terminal emulation software and processor
speed on your end slow down text as it renders to the screen and
scrolls.
2.  The combination of BBS software and processor speed on the
computer you are calling slow down text as it is pulled off the
other machine's hard drive, possibly displayed on the other
machine's console, and then sent over the modem to you.

If your computer can't deal with text moving at that speed it will
step in and use hardware flow control to slow down the incoming
data.  If the other machine can't generate text for the output
buffer as fast as the modem on the other end wants it, the modem on
the other end is going to take whatever is in its buffer, make a
packet and send it along, slowing down the process somewhat.

You can 1) Buy a faster computer, 2) Buy your SYSOP a faster
computer, 3) show the author of your SYSOP's favorite software how
to write faster code, or 4) get a better terminal emulation
package.

The modems have nothing to do with this.

Stratocaster


-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
   *** What shall we use to fill the empty places where we used to talk? ***
From: kauppila@sunburn.ec.usf.edu. (Jim Kauppila (IE))
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: ZyXEL Caller ID?
Date: 24 Jul 92 14:03:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: ariel.1992Jul24.140350.1154
Organization: Univ. of South Florida, College of Engineering

Has anyone had any success in getting the ZyXEL Caller ID working?

I have had no success at all getting it working here in Florida with
GTE phone service.  I do have a caller ID box sitting next to the modem
that picks up and identifies every incoming call so far.




--
Jim Kauppila                |  E-Mail: Internet: kauppila@sunburn.ec.usf.edu
College of Engineering      |             GEnie: j.kauppila
University of South Florida | Heartland Freenet: jkauppil
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: medin@catbyte.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Dave Medin)
Subject: Re: Compudyne 2400e:  Help with power supply needed
Keywords: modem, compudyne, power, transformer
Reply-To: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
Organization: Intergraph Corporation, Huntsville AL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:36:39 GMT


<stuff about Compudyne power supply need omitted>

Radio Shack has an adapter (part number 273-1611) that works
for most modems which its plug fits. It is intended for Nintendo
game replacement, but has the 9 AC volt 1.3 amp rating which satisfies
a good majority of the modems I've seen.

If the plug does not fit your modem, buy a plug that does and do some minor
surgery on the adaptor. Since the output is AC, there is no polarity
problem to worry about...

Hope this helps.
-- 
 --------------------------------------------------------------------
       Dave Medin			Phone:	(205) 730-3169 (w)
    Intergraph Corp.				(205) 837-1174 (h)
       M/S GD3004
  Huntsville, AL 35894 		Internet: medin@catbyte.b30.ingr.com
				UUCP:  ...uunet!ingr!b30!catbyte!medin

   ******* Everywhere You Look (at least around my office) *******

 * The opinions expressed here are mine (or those of my machine)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: sabrom@cebaf9.cebaf.gov (Seth Bromberger)
Subject: Re: PRACT PERIPH 14400FXSA
Reply-To: sabrom@cebaf9.cebaf.gov (Seth Bromberger)
Organization: CEBAF (Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility)
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:54:08 GMT


Just found out...
Practical Peripherals called me regarding the AT&T19 (RTS/CTS test) command.
It turns out that this command is software-activated only, as it expects some
sort of response before an internal timeout.  If you type AT&T19 in command
mode, you will get ERROR since you are not sending the signal and the modem
times out waiting for it.

This is what PPI told me; I have no way of verifying this, since I don't
know what public software (if any) supports this test.  If anyone knows
about any support for AT&T19, please let me know...

Seth Bromberger
sabrom@cebaf.gov

#include <disclaimer.h> /* Standard Disclaimer */
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: ckd@eff.org (Christopher Davis)
Subject: Re: Internal vs External modem peerformance
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation Tech Central
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 22:09:37 GMT

Geoffrey> == Geoffrey Welsh <geoff@zswamp.UUCP> 

 Geoffrey>  - Being able to reset the modem without resetting your PC.

Hey, how about being able to reset your PC (or whatever) without having
to drop the connection?  On at least one occasion, I've found a need to
reboot my machine, but didn't want to have to log out and then back
in--too much state.  So I rebooted the machine, restarted the term
program, and my session was just fine...
--
Christopher Davis * ckd@eff.org * System Administrator, EFF * +1 617 864 0665
   ``The First Amendment is often inconvenient.  But that is besides the
  point.  Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation
         to tolerate speech.'' --Justice Anthony Kennedy, in 91-155
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:11090 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:20208
From: mwormley@zeus.calpoly.edu (Matt Wormley)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: 14,400 bps:  Does any comm software support it?
Date: 24 Jul 92 09:10:49 GMT
Organization: California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

In article <1992Jul23.184645.19992@actrix.gen.nz> Steve.Withers@bbs.actrix.gen.nz writes:
>In article <1992Jul23.122353.18296@bnr.ca> richard@bnr.ca (Richard A. Dault) writes:
>> In article <csjohn.711865104@knuth> csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (Bullwinkle) writes:
>> >
>> >I will be getting a 14,400 bps v.32/v.32bis/v.42/v.42bis
>> >fax/modem soon.  I have noticed that on all of the MSDOS
>> >and OS/2 communications software that I have seen there is
>> >no setting for 14,400 bps, although there is for 9600 bps and
>> >19,200 bps.   Is there any way to access the 14,400 bps
>> >speed, or am I stuck at 9600 bps for now?  Is there any software
>> >out there that supports 14,400 bps?  Thanks. 
>> 
>> No communication programs have a 14.4K baud setting.
>> 
>> You set the comm speed to 19.2K baud for regular communication, or you set
>> it to 38.2K baud when using data compression.  I always set mine to 38.2K
>> baud and when calling somewhere and the 'auto-detect' will slow it down if
>> necessary.
>> I use telix 3.15, you can set the comm speed to 38.2K baud.
>
>You should set it to 57,600 if you have a 14.4-capable modem with V.42bis.
>

   Not necessarily.  It depends on the modem.  My Dual Standard (and many of
the v.32bis-supporting modems) will only allow a 38.4kbps comm port rate.
Your modem should say.

     worm