From: john.navas@uttsbbs.uucp (John Navas) 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: RE: INTEL MODEMS
Date: 16 Nov 92 10:00:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The Transfer Station BBS, Danville, CA - 510-837-4610/837-5591
Reply-To: john.navas@uttsbbs.uucp (John Navas) 

mrosen@nyx.cs.du.edu (Michael Rosen) writes:

 JN> A serious limitation of the 400 is that it's a "DOS-only" modem
 JN> -- since Intel did not use Flash RAM or EEPROM for the firmware,
 JN> it has to be downloaded each time you power up, and Intel only
 JN> provides a DOS device driver to do the job.  :-(
 JN> By comparison my USR Sportster 14400 works flawlessly.

 > How does the USR differ from the Intel/400?

It's a more conventional design, with firmware in EPROM.  The internal
version uses a buffered 16550 UART (which is as good as Intel's UART
emulation for most purposes).  It works in data mode with virtually
any computer, operating system and comm software.  The fax is Class 1,
whereas Intel uses CAS -- most (but not all) good software supports
both "standards".  (Now that Class 2 is finally approved, I expect USR
to migrate the Sportster to Class 2.)  The hardware in the USR is
proprietary, based on USR's long and extensive expertise in modem
design, and therefore is very solid.

 > What does loading a driver do to the performance of the modem?
 > Does it end up slowing it down?

Not really, because all it does for data mode is download the firmware
during boot up.

 > I'm considering ordering the Intel and I don't know enough af what
 > you speak of to know how it will effect me.

My biggest complaint about Intel (other than the DOS-only device
driver) is that it has problems connecting to certain older (2400bps
and down) modems, problems that the USR does not have.  Also, I found
that the USR gets slightly better data throughput, especially on
marginal lines.  Finally, I found quite a number of minor glitches
(aka bugs, like it doesn't work on certain phone lines, and is not
fully compatible with DESQview), and my experience with Intel made me
doubt that they would get fixed.

The one significant potential advantage of the Intel 400 is that it
features automatic fax/data sensing, so you can have both data and fax
software waiting for incoming calls at the same time.  The USR can do
one or the other, but not both at the same time.

Intel claims to support 14400bps fax, whereas USR is "only" 9600bps,
but the feature is of little value as you're unlikely to find a remote
system that supports more than 9600bps (and the 14400bps speed was
broken in the original release of the 400).  Intel also claims better
fax compression than USR, but I did not observe any significant
difference during my testing.

The bottom line, at least for me, is that Intel has an innovative
concept that is marred by implementation flaws, whereas USR has a more
conventional design that's solid as a rock.

 > I'm currently running a 486-DX33 in Windows with 8 megs of RAM.

I'm also not a fan of Intel's "FAXability" software.  Far better,
IMHO, is Delrina's recently announced WinFax PRO >> 3.0 <<, which I
have been beta testing -- highly recommended!

Best regards,
John
                                            
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems