HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner)
Subject: Re: ZyXEL's -- do they ever work?
Keywords: ZyXEL
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 22:23:41 GMT

In article <dirkst.718051437@messua> dirkst@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (Dirk Steinberg) writes:
|has anyone ever seen a real *working* ZyXEL 1496E?

I've got two, in heavy daily use.

|After half an hour, it just crashed with the LEDs
|in a random state. Power cycling (the only way to reset) didn't 
|help.

Did you try turning it on with the data/talk switch held in?  That will do
a hardware reset.

|If now it only could dial........
|It cannot pick up the phone and dial a number, just says NO DIALTONE
|and the speaker remains silent.

What ROM revision does your modem have?  Have you tried with ATX0, so
that it doesn't check for dialtone?  Did you try calling ZyXEL technical
support?

|Not too much
|quality in there; they use a 12 Mhz CPU clocked at 16 MHz and 150 ns
|EPROMS whereas somewhere I read 120 ns was required.

Are these rumors, or do you know these things for sure?  I read somewhere
that everyone in Germany is shorter than 5'5", but I'm not about to post
to netnews stating that as a fact.

  Bill
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: USR DS v.32bis 10-15% faster thoughput over the Worldblazer
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:59:00 GMT

kjv@exucom.com (Karl J. Vesterling) writes:

>	No, probably an oversight of whomever configured your
>WorldBlazers...  The Telebit guys are alsmost the best when it comes
>to Modem software...  Top ranking I'd have to say Gandalf is #1, but
>they mainly do leased line equipment.  I have 2 WorldBlazer modems here,
>both of which are locked at 56Kbps, and I can connect to them with
>300bps, 1200bps, 2400bps, v.32, v.42bis, etc...  Even PEP works of

I can connect with the from outside (ie: calling into the WB I can
connect just fine at 1200/2400/etc) but the problem is when using
the modems from the UNIX machine -- I need to talk to them
at the locked DTE speed (ie: 56700 baud) -- and I can't talk
to them at 300/1200/2400/etc -- where is with the USR V.32bis modems
this isn't a problem (I can talk to them at ANY speed from the
unix machine using cu or proyam) --

here are my registers:

WorldBlazer - SA - Version LA5.01A- Active Configuration
 B1  E1  L1  M1  P   Q2  V1  X0  Y0 
&C1 &D3 &G0 &J0 &L0 &Q0 &R3 &S1 &T5 &X0 
S000:1   S001=0   S002=43  S003=13  S004=10  S005=8   S006=2   S007:80 
S008=2   S009:12  S010=14  S011=70  S012=50  S018=0   S025=5   S026=1  
S038=0   S041:1   S045=0   S046=0   S047=4   S048=0   S050=0   S051:7  
S056=17  S057=19  S058:2   S059=0   S060=0   S061:0   S062=15  S063=0  
S064=0   S068=255 S069=0   S090=0   S092:1   S093=8   S094=1   S100=0  
S104=0   S105=1   S111:30  S112=1   S151=4   S155=0   S180=2   S181=1  
S183=25  S190=1   S191:6   S253=10  S254=255 S255=0   
OK

>course...  I'd pay close attention to the following S-Registers:

>S190 Data Compression Enable <- Most notable for hangups
>S51 DTE Interface speed <- Make sure it's locked, and AutoBauds

According to the manual -- the Worldblazer for some unknown reason
only autobauds up to 38400 baud -- and not at 56700 or 115200 baud

While the USR modems autobaud up to 56700 baud -- 

>	You get what you pay for...  Telebit...  The #1 choice for
>SERIOUS modemers...

I disagree -- the USR modem is better for interactive v.32bis
use with better latency and 10-15% better overall throughput
using uucico/zmodem/ymodem-g over the WorldBlazer.  Like I've
said in other postings, I only suggest going with the WB when
PEP is required -- keeping in mind the poorer latency and
v.32bis throughput.

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Intel & Sun workstation
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:36:14 GMT

rouquett@Aig.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Nicolas Rouquette) writes:
>Up to now, I've been using an Intel 14.4ex with a Mac.
>Now I want to use it with a Sun workstation. Does anyone have
>a profile of registers to configure the modem with
>along with the applicable /etc/remote entry?

>Right now, I use tip without much success. tip can dial 
>but then the modem hangs up after making a conenction.
>On the other hand, 'tip cua0' manages to connect to the modem;
>however, all commands aren't recognized by the modem.
>The only thing I get back is an error status every 100 characters or so.
*----
Make sure your sun serial port is has the getty disabled, or is 
set up properly as a bidirectional port (and in that case, I don't
know offhand which control signals have to be set).  Try the simple
case (getty always disabled) first.

The latter problem sounds like a handshaking problem.  You don't
mention which Sun you have, but I don't think you can set up a 
Sparc for hardware handshaking (and I'm not aware of any software
which does it properly on sun 3's).  So you'll have to set the modem
up for x-on/x-off handshaking.
--
	Mike Berger
	Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
	AT&TNET     217-244-6067
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: 14400bps throuhput
Date: 3 Oct 92 05:29:01 GMT
Organization: RAND

In article <00961830.76217780@vms.csd.mu.edu> 1012breuckma@vms.csd.mu.edu writes:
> . . .With a V.32bis connection I can download ZIP files using Ymodem-G
>protocol and reach about 1650 cps.  The base rate is 1440 so obviously
>the compression is working.

No, the "base rate" is somewhere around 1750 characters/second.  The
reason for this is that V.42 and MNP4 strip start and stop bits off
of the serial data stream before transmission.  Thus 14400 bits/second
means 14400/8 = 1800 characters/second.  The protocol overhead of
V.42 or MNP4 reduces this somewhat, down to 1750 or so.

ZIP files are essentially uncompressible under V.42bis, and actually
expand somewhat under MNP5.  The same is true with files from other
archivers and with compression utilities like "compress."  So you'll
see essentially the same data rate with V.42bis as without it.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,biz.comp.telebit
From: marc@r-node.gts.org (Marc Fournier - Sys Admin)
Subject: Re: USR DS v.32bis 10-15% faster thoughput over the Worldblazer
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organzation
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 1992 18:52:35 GMT

In article <BvKCCC.3GB@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>Since most of my transfers are with uucp I am most concerned about
>uucp throughput with the WB using v.32bis against the USR v.32bis.
>
>I just scanned my logs -- 1100-1200 cps using v.32bis on the WB
>against 1420-1450 cps on the USR v.32bis for yesterdays calls
>(again using uucp-g).
>
>Call after call -- v.32bis throughput with the WB is slower than
>the USR V.32bis.  
>

	Okay, now, the question is why??  I know that with my WB,
at v32bis, I got ~1600cps using Zmodem, so the modem is capable
of it...but are you telling me that usig Zmodem on an USR V.32bis,
I will get higher then that yet??

	Will changing my DTE help any?  I'm running at 38400...
if I upped that to..hmm...what does WB do, 115xxx(?), would that
help even if my feeds are running their DTE slower?  Can I
just make another line in /etc/gettydefs like I did with 38400, or
is there something special I must do?

	Within the next couple of weeks, I'm thinking of upgrading
to Taylor UUCP, as I hear that will help some also, but if those
I talk to don't have that, will it really help any?

	Can we steer this thread towards what we can do to
increase our throughput instead of 'my modem is better then yours'??

Marc

-- 
Marc G. Fournier      | R-node Public Access Unix running UnixBBS 1.03
Etobicoke, Ontario    | 416-249-5366   24hrs 7 days/week   network email
voice: 249-4230       | shell accounts available  1900+ newsgroups  FREE
marc@r-node.pci.on.ca | Telebit WorldBlazer/SupraModem2400/Cardinal 2400 
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: nolan@helios.unl.edu (Michael Nolan)
Subject: Re: Connect 2 modems directly without going through phone system
Reply-To: nolan@helios.unl.edu
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:33:06 GMT

rli@cco.caltech.edu (Rongsheng Li) writes:


>I need to make two notebook PC talk to each other but all they got
>are the FAX Modems. They do not have an extra RS232 port to connect
>them directly.  Can I directly connect the two modem without
>going through the phone system ? How can I do not ?

>If it is not possible, are there any alternatives ?

I think my son has done this, but I'm not sure how adviseable it is.
As I recall, all he did was connect the two modems together with a
modular phone cable like the ones that come with most modems.

If what you really want to do is copy files between the two systems,
there are alternatives involving the parallel ports on both PC's with
products like laplink.  These commercial products will also give you a lot 
better speed than connecting two modems together.
---
Michael Nolan
nolan@helios.unl.edu, nolan@tssi.com, mike.nolan@genie.geis.com
"A monk, a clone, and a Ferengi decided to go bowling together..."
From: edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Help needed configuring PP14400FXSA for UUCP on sun-3/50
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:42:27 GMT
Organization: RAND

In article <2964@news.cerf.net> speakez@nic.cerf.net (Robert Crowe) writes:
>   1.   I can't seem to get it to answer in v32.bis mode when I dial into
>        it via a brand new dual-standard. It always connects at 2400. 
>	When I dial into the dual-standard from the PP, it works just fine.

Make sure the Dual Standard is in CCITT mode.  "ATB0" will do it.  Other-
wise, it will try for HST first, and wind up in 2400 as a fallback.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org
From: jpf@wstar.mixcom.com (John P. Flanagan)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Shunning proprietary modems (was: Re: Zoom vs Supra vs ZyXEL)
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:21:55 GMT
Organization: WaveStar Technology

jeffo@uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) writes:

>For noisy phone line handling, check out the ZyXEL, Supra or Zoom.
                                                     ^^^^^
						     Forget it!
WARNING:
If you purchase a Supra to run at greater than 9600 on less
than perfect phone lines, you're wasting your money!

If Supra is listening, you'd better define what 'noisy phone line'
means with respect to the other modem vendors that `can and do'
reliably connect under identical line conditions.

A little less marketing and a little more engineering?

I've purchased two of your silver (1.2C) toys last May.
I'd trade them both for a couple tin cans and string.
Thanks for all the grief Supra.
From: rouquett@Aig.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Nicolas Rouquette)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Intel & Sun workstation
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:21:13 GMT
Reply-To: rouquett@aig.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Up to now, I've been using an Intel 14.4ex with a Mac.
Now I want to use it with a Sun workstation. Does anyone have
a profile of registers to configure the modem with
along with the applicable /etc/remote entry?

Right now, I use tip without much success. tip can dial 
but then the modem hangs up after making a conenction.
On the other hand, 'tip cua0' manages to connect to the modem;
however, all commands aren't recognized by the modem.
The only thing I get back is an error status every 100 characters or so.

-- 
----------Nicolas Rouquette----------rouquett@aig.jpl.nasa.gov
    Artificial Intelligence Group
      Jet Propulsion Laboratory
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Why get caller ID?
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:56:42 GMT
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

tdinh@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Tommy Dinh) writes:

>Aside from the obvious reason for getting caller ID (ie. identifies caller 
>before answering), what applications are there for this feature in
>modems which are non-business related?

It'll let me find out the number of the modems that are *failing* to
connect to my system. And then I can try to get hold of them and work
out the problem. Otherwise, all I have is a failed connection message
in the log.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
From: thorson@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu (Bill Thorson)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: How many rings on SUPRA?
Date: 6 Oct 92 19:30:23 GMT
Organization: Colorado State University -- Atmos Sci


  I have a couple SupraFax+ modems and would like to set one up to
answer only after about 10 rings.  This is easy to do with an AT
command.  The question I have is how do you control how many rings
the calling modem with wait for before it returns 'no answer'?

Bill Thorson
-- 
#!/bin/sh
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------#
echo Bill Thorson                   thorson@typhoon.atmos.colostate.edu
echo Dept of Atmospheric Science    +1 303 491-8339
echo Colorado State University
echo Ft. Collins,  CO  80523
#-----------------------------------------------------------------------#
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.sun.admin
From: nanook@eskimo.celestial.com (Robert Dinse)
Subject: Re: Telebit T3000 and Suns
Summary: Incoming flow control...
Keywords: T3000, Sun
Organization: -> ESKIMO NORTH (206) For-Ever <-
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:24:33 GMT

In article <1a97rtINNe19@huon.itd.adelaide.edu.au>, dclunie@sirius.ucs.adelaide.edu.au (David Clunie) writes:
> In article <3836@randvax.rand.org> edhall@rand.org (Ed Hall) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep27.170419.1610@kilowatt.uucp> root@kilowatt.UUCP (Kilowatt admin) writes:
> >>	My friend has a WorldBlazer (used to be a T3000) running at 38400.
> >>His drops characters like crazy! It's more like big chunks of data that 
> >>disappear.
> >
> >Then he doesn't have hardware flow control working correctly.  Trying
> >to run a high-speed modem any other way is close to insanity (or at
> >least will push you close to it :-).
> >
> 
> That is quite correct. Unfortunately, sun sparcstations CANNOT DO
> INCOMING HARDWARE FLOW CONTROL. The Zilog SCC implements only
> outgoing hardware flow control on-board, and the sun serial driver
> software does not throttle the line manually when its buffers start
> to fill either.

     My gettytab entry for the port with the World Blazer on it looks like
this:

h|std.38400|38400-baud:\
        :sp#38400:ms=crtscts:

     I have S58=2 and S68=2 on the World Blazer.  It works fine for me.
I've had no problems with any Sparc machines I've connected World Blazers
to working this way.  No characters dropping.  The Sun responds fine to the
modems flow control and I've yet to have a problem with it keeping up with
incoming data.

     The exception is the Sparc Station with both ports on one connector,
on those only port 'A' works.

     Other people I've had do this despite the fact that it supposedly won't
work have and it's worked fine for everyone that's tried it and gotten back
to me.

     Now, on Sun 3/180 and 3/280 I have some problems, but I'll save that for
another group and message.

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.sun.admin
From: root@kilowatt.uucp (Kilowatt admin)
Subject: Re: Telebit T3000 and Suns
Keywords: T3000, Sun
Reply-To: root@kilowatt.UUCP (Kilowatt admin)
Organization: Kilowatt Computing of Deer Park, NY
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:04:19 GMT


	My friend has a WorldBlazer (used to be a T3000) running at 38400.
His drops characters like crazy! It's more like big chunks of data that 
disappear. But then again, that's talking to my machine - a 486-33 running
SVR4 (Consensys) with the DTE speed at 115200!!! I don't have any problems!
	UUCP works fine for obvious reasons - the handshaking of small packets
keeps the input buffer pretty small - no overruns.

-- 
Kilowatt Computing					Arthur A. Krewat
51 Winnecomac Ave.				uunet!admiral!kilowat!krewat
Deer Park, NY 11729					(516) 586-4743
(516) 253-2805						Consensys SVR4
From: laut@keego.gici.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Codex and Me
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:15:31 GMT
Organization: Gull Island Consultants, Inc.

In article <Bvnxn3.7u7@gator.rn.com>, larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
> skipm@dorsai.com (Skip Mac-Stoker) writes:
> 
>>Try the new Codex V.fast modem 3260 model - I'm testing a beta pair, and
>>under dos, connected to BBS from NY to Virginia, I was getting 82 kbps on
>>a standard ZModem transfer.
> 
>>Once again, Motorola/Codex excells. I am truly impressed, but from a company
>>like Codex, you can only expect the best.
> 
> How large of a file?  What type of file?
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
> keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry

When you refer to the "Codex V.fast modem 3260," are you referring to the
modem that is in the CodeXpress catalogue?  If so, I'll offer my observations
on their products....

We are running a pair of Codex 3261s in a four-wire analog loop circuit,
running a custom data-link layer protocol that is operationally an enhanced
SLIP.  We get consistent 19.2K throughput, even with binary transfers on a
data rate of 7200 (though normally 14.4).

During informal experiments, we've gotten excellent 38.4 throughput on
bursty traffic, although if the traffic is long and sustained, the throughput
appears to drop down to around 23K, even on ASCII data.

We're upgrading the computer's terminal interface to support 38.4, and when
that's done, we'll jack both modems up and see what sort of throughput we
can achieve.

We did have a couple of modem failures.  One call to Codex (on their 800
number) and they sent out replacements via overnight shipment.  No hassles,
no fuss, no bother.

Summary:  I love Codex, and won't consider anything else.


-- 
Bill Laut			Internet:  laut@alien.gici.com
Gull Island Consultants, Inc.	Phone:     (616) 780-3321
P.O. Box 627
Muskegon, MI  49440		>> "Usual disclaimers, apply within" <<
From: wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: ZYXEL TECH SUPPORT
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:01:28 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Cambridge, MA
NNTP-Posting-Host: crystal.bbn.com
In-reply-to: ramzi@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU's message of Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:11:26 GMT

ramzi@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Ramzi Al-Majid) asks:
>how good is it [ZyXEL Tech. support]? i sent them mail a few days ago but
>have not recieved any response back. my questions were pre-sale that will
>help us decide which modems to buy for our systems and how many. 

   They don't have a direct Internet connection; I think they're connected
via FIDOnet.  I also tried sending email (to Tyrone Horton, who sometimes
posts on this group), and he said he received the messages, but his replies
never got back to me.  Using email to reach Zero/One doesn't seem to work
very well.

   Two alternatives that do work are: calling Zero/One by phone, and buying
the modems via a reseller (some of whom do reliably reply to Internet mail
and do provide technical support).  I've had success with both methods.
 -WBE
From: kevinb@oblivion.csd.sgi.com (Kevin Brokaw)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Shunning proprietary modems (was: Re: Zoom vs Supra vs ZyXEL)
Date: 28 Sep 92 20:58:09 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics Computer Systems

In article <1992Sep28.162155.606@wstar.mixcom.com>, jpf@wstar.mixcom.com (John P. Flanagan) writes:
|> WARNING:
|> If you purchase a Supra to run at greater than 9600 on less
|> than perfect phone lines, you're wasting your money!
|> 
|> If Supra is listening, you'd better define what 'noisy phone line'
|> means with respect to the other modem vendors that `can and do'
|> reliably connect under identical line conditions.
|> 
|> A little less marketing and a little more engineering?
|> 
|> I've purchased two of your silver (1.2C) toys last May.
|> I'd trade them both for a couple tin cans and string.
|> Thanks for all the grief Supra.

Before you throw the baby out with the bath water, perhaps you had
best include all of the dozen(s) of other Rockwell-engine V32bis
faxmodems in your opinion, rather than just the most popular
(pervasive?) brand. I have encountered users calling my BBS (one
of my modems is a Supra, the other a non-Rockwell modem) using 
a half dozen or so modems that while less known in the marketplace,
use the same engine for their functions, and suffer from the SAME
extreme line-noise sensitivity that is so often attributed ONLY 
to Supra modems. I agree that the Supra is too sensitive to line
noise, but I also applaud Supra for publicly admitting there are
problems with the Rockwell chipset, and undertaking the task of 
writing the ROM code themselves to atttempt to correct the problem.
I know of at least 3 other manufacturers that are simply sitting on 
their hands, waiting for Rockwell to resolve the problem. 1.20H 
claims to address this at least in some respects... I'll reserve
further decisions about Supra until I see how it fares (I believe
1.20H is the first ROM revision after they announced their 
departure from dependance upon Rockwell for base ROM changes).
                                                                      

-- 
Kevin Brokaw - Product Support Engineer   | 
Silicon Graphics Computer Systems         | All wight, rho sritched
Internet: kevinb@sgi.com                  | my kegcaps awounf?
(415)-390-2185                            |
From: egreen@waggen.twuug.com (Eddie Greenside)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Shunning proprietary modems (was: Re: Zoom vs Supra vs ZyXEL)
Date: 30 Sep 92 01:12:08 GMT
Organization: Brite Systems

jpf@wstar.mixcom.com (John P. Flanagan) writes:

>jeffo@uiuc.edu (J.B. Nicholson-Owens) writes:

>>For noisy phone line handling, check out the ZyXEL, Supra or Zoom.
>                                                     ^^^^^
>						     Forget it!
>WARNING:
>If you purchase a Supra to run at greater than 9600 on less
>than perfect phone lines, you're wasting your money!

>If Supra is listening, you'd better define what 'noisy phone line'
>means with respect to the other modem vendors that `can and do'
>reliably connect under identical line conditions.

>A little less marketing and a little more engineering?

>I've purchased two of your silver (1.2C) toys last May.
>I'd trade them both for a couple tin cans and string.
>Thanks for all the grief Supra.


Practical Peripherals had the same problem with automatic retain and noisy
lines; however, once I upgraded to Rom version 1.15M, the modem is able to
drop in speeds regardless of line noise.  In fact, if someone picks up the
phone in the house it doesnt drop me like a fly, like on Rom version 1.12C. 
You might want to upgrade to Supra's New rom upgrade, that may fix you line
noise connection above 9600.  I cant mention anything positive about Supra's
new rom upgrade and how it handles, so if someone could fill in that void I
would appreciate.. Im curious to find out how their new rom upgrade handles.