HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Paul.Conaway@p22.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Paul Conaway)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: RE: Practical Peripherals 14400
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 18:28:31 EST
Organization: FidoNet node 1:226/20.22 - cmhGate UF Gateway, Columbus OH

To: st1n2@rosie.uh.edu
   
Mccoy, Mark writes in a message to All

 MM>  To: All  From: Mccoy, Mark  Subject: Practical Peripherals 
 MM> 14400  Created: Mon 9 Oct 92 at 23:21 
 MM> From: st1n2@rosie.uh.edu (McCoy, Mark) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems 
 MM> Organization: University of Houston 
 MM> I am currently shopping for a 14400 modem. I have been following 
 MM> this group for about a week and haven't seen any posts about 
 MM> the Practical Peripherals 14400. I have seen lots of posts 
 MM> on the Zyxel 1496e, but I have been unable to find a local 
 MM> (Houston) dealer who carries them, and out of town places I 
 MM> have contacted are back ordered. The Practical Peripherals 
 MM> 14400 has been recommended to me, but I know nothing about 
 MM> it. The one person I know who has one has been very satisfied, 
 MM> but I would like to get some more input on the PP before I 
 MM> plunk down the cash for one. Also, if anyone knows of a reliable 
 MM> Zyxel dealer who isn't back ordered I would like to hear about 
 MM> them. 
 MM> Thanks in advance 
 MM> Mark McCoy (st1n2@jetson.uh.edu)  --- Fred-Uf 1.8k  * Origin: 
 MM> cmhGate UseNet <=> FidoNet Gateway Col, Ohio (1:226/20.0) 

Mark, I have a PPI 14400 and I love it. I did have the roms that had the
retrain problem but PPI was very helpful and I got new ROMs quickly. PPI has a
lifetime warrenty. I have been very satisfied with the performance of the
modem and the service I got from PPI. If you have anymore questions just ask.

Paul Conaway

 
--  
Paul Conaway via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!n8emr!bluemoon!cmhgate!20.22!Paul.Conaway
INET: Paul.Conaway@p22.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: geb1@ra.msstate.edu (Granville Barker)
Subject: SPORTSTER 14.4K (4.2) could do DS w/o ROM Hacking
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:20:20 GMT

I own both a Sportster and a new DS.  I was playing around the other night
and swapped the daughterboards in them.  When I turned the Sportster on with
the DS daughterboard, it still thought it was a SPORTSTER!!!

So this says that the pins going to the daughterboard must have some kind of
BINARY ID ( pins tied high and low to indicate motherboard type ).  So if you
just re-arrange the right pins ( tie the right ones high or low ).  Your 4.2
rom should do 16.8 as well.

If anyone finds out which pins will do it, post it back here!!!


Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: esack@newton.helios.nd.edu (Eric Sack)
Subject: Re: Hayes Ultra 144 modem fares poorly in MacUser tests
Followup-To: comp.dcom.modems
Organization: CEGS, University of Notre Dame
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:56:05 GMT

In article <Bvq583.BKn@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>zeke@fasttech.uucp (Bohdan Tashchuk) writes:
>
>>overall
>>speed
>>1	UDS Motorola V.3229, the clear winner
>>2	Image TWINCOM 14.4/DF, failed "Rural Line"
      [rest of list deleted...]
>Hmm.. No US Robotics v.32bis nor Telebit WorldBlazer/T3000

I think I recall that the MacUser test was on "Mac ready" modems.
Those are modems which come packaged with serial cables which
allow them to be connected to a Mac. Also, if the modem had
fax capabilities, it came bundled with Mac fax software...
Or at least it was something like that.

Eric
--
Eric G. Sack                          |         Voice:          219/283-1985
Department of Civil Engineering       |           Fax:          219/239-8007
  and Geological Sciences             |      Internet:  Eric.G.Sack.1@nd.edu
University of Notre Dame              |           CIS:             71150,150
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: chiting@hardy.u.washington.edu (Stanley Chi-Ting Lam)
Subject: Re: ZyXEL 16800bps?
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 07:12:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.003315.14948@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> hughesk@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Kirby W. Hughes) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.231447.11390@u.washington.edu> chiting@hardy.u.washington.edu (Stanley Chi-Ting Lam) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct9.203826.12023@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> hughesk@helium.gas.uug.arizona.edu (Kirby W. Hughes) writes:
>>>
>>>Also, are you sure that your 1496E has 16.8 capability?  I just ordered mine,
>>>and they said that 16.8 (and voice) is $50 extra!!!!
>>>
>>>
>>>-Kirby Hughes
>>>hughesk@gas.uug.arizona.edu
>>
>>Just called ZyXEL and asked about that and they said that new 1496E
>>with ROM v5.02 comes with 16.8 and voice.  The $50 is for sending in
>>old modems for upgrade only.
>>
>>Also, the modem has been in back order at least since I ordered mine a
>>week ago.  They expect to ship it again in the 3rd week of October.
>>
>>Hope I am not the confused one.
>>
>>-- chiting
>
>Ok, how much was it then?

With the 40% contest discount, it costed me $281.4 PLUS shipping.
It costs $469 w/o the discount.

>Maybe I'm the confused one.  I ordered the 1496B (the internal version
>of 1496E, supposedly) from ZERO-1 Networking.  They said the price was
>$449, and if I wanted 16.8kbps and voice, it would be $50 more than that.
>Does the 1496E automatically come with all that?

That is what they told me when I called them today.

>Maybe I should go external!

The external one seems to be a better deal, IMHO.  The specification I
downloaded from ZyXEL BBS a couple weeks ago said that 1496B cannot
transmit synchronously while 1496E can.  The specification may not be
update though since it didn't talk about 16.8k at all.  Also,
synchronous transmittion is not useful to everyone.

>I always thought the internal ones were cheaper.  I got the internal so
>I wouldn't have to get a new serial card (with 16550A).

Maybe you can just replace the UART.

>(btw:  I got the 40% contest discount, so it was only $284.40 including
>shipping  (no 16.8 or voice))
>
>-Kirby Hughes

-- chiting
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: herbst@seq.uncwil.edu (R.T. Herbst)
Subject: Intel 14.4
Keywords: modem intel
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 08:14:10 GMT

Anyone have any experience with Intel's 14.4 external modem.
Might buy one. Would appreciate comments.
herbst@seq.uncwil.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.sun.admin
From: root@kilowatt.uucp (Kilowatt admin)
Subject: Re: Telebit T3000 and Suns
Reply-To: root@kilowatt.UUCP (Kilowatt admin)
Organization: Kilowatt Computing of Deer Park, NY
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:09:47 GMT

: 	What version is the micro-code for your Sparc??? Is it > 1.0?
: If so, that's why it works. The OLD microcode didn't work well.
: 	I'm not a full-time Sun user, so don't take my word on it. I don't
: know if it's only Sparc I's, or II's also, or what.

>Version 1.0 of SPARC MICROCODE?  Sun doesn't update microcode, you're
>probably referring to the boot PROM.  However, the boot PROM has nothing to
>do with whether or not the Sun serial driver for the zs (tty[ab]) ports
>implement RTS flow control.  Please don't post stuff that you know nothing
>about as "fact".
>
>mike
	Sorry if this is not a "fact" but I did qualify my statement!!!
I meant BOOT PROM... A friend has been working with Sun Sparc I's II's IPC's,
et al for about 4 years now. He has seen numerous problems with EARLY SUN's
usually exhibiting version 1.x of the BOOT PROM! Seems to me, this would be
the place to see serial port interface subroutines (BIOS-like). Else, why
have an EEPROM, UNIX should be able to take care of it all, eh?
	Does the serial driver communicate directly with the serial ports?
Or does it call stuff in the boot prom? Also, does the Sun even USE any
microcode? It's a RISC chipset... that implies NO microcode. That's the
benefit of RISC, isn't it?
	Like I said, I have no idea why Suns SEEM to be bad with serial ports.
It may be SunOS, it may be the hardware design, it may be the BOOT PROM. All
I know is that a Sparc I can't keep up with a 486-33 running SVR4.
	and I quote: "I'm not a full-time Sun user, so don't take my word
on it". I thought this was enough of a disclaimer.

-- 
Kilowatt Computing					Arthur A. Krewat
51 Winnecomac Ave.				uunet!admiral!kilowatt!krewat
Deer Park, NY 11729					(516) 586-4743
(516) 253-2805						Consensys SVR4
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,biz.comp.telebit
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: MNP5 with WorldBlazer
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 21:37:35 GMT

pascoe@rocky.gte.com (Dave Pascoe) writes:


>A couple of people asked about this.  This turned out to be register
>S111, which governs protocol support(like UUCP and Kermit spoofing).
>You have to set S111=0 (I had S111=255) which disables protocol
>support. Then MNP negotiation will work.

why don't MNP work with S111 set to other registers?

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:22:43 EDT
From: <DXB132@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: flow control on serial connection

In article <1992Oct7.001350.29707@netcom.com>, pdh@netcom.com (Phil Howard )
says:

>What methods to the variable speed modems really use for controlling
>the excess flow on the serial connection?  I frequently hear about
>horror stories where some such modem is using ^S and ^Q for flow
>control.

>I want to make sure I buy a modem that uses CTS or appropriate RS-232
>lines for the control, and full 256 code transparency to the other end.

As far as I know ALL 'modern' modems use CTS to control data flow.
(i.e. CTS-asserted means the computer is allowed to send the modem more data).
I'm not sure when this 'standard' protocol came into existance.
From: brown@odin.ins.cwru.edu (Dan Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Recommendations for rack mount modems
Date: 9 Oct 1992 00:50:06 GMT
Organization: Subversive Student Publications un-inc.
Distribution: comp
NNTP-Posting-Host: odin.ins.cwru.edu

In an earlier posting meyer@darkwing.uoregon.edu (David M. Meyer 503/346-1747) writes:
>
>	We are in the process (again) of evaluating rack mount
>	modems. We currently have Penril v.32bis rack mount

CWRU has used these modems, and has not been entirely succesful with them.
I would reccomend you try something else.

>	modems, which have several features I like. However, the
>	maximum DTE speed is 38400, and I would like to find some
>	comparable modems that support 57600 DTE speeds. 
>
>	Anyone have any recommendations?

CWRU uses rack mounted USRobotics modems with the "Total Control" management
stuff. The engineers like them, the users like them. I like them. They
have a bunch of diagnostic LED on the front of each modem, where as the
Penrils only have "power", "self test", and (I think) "online". The USR's
are also connected to a PC that monitors, and can be used to manage all
of them. We have 128 modems, or 8 racks of 16, all connected to the same
monitoring PC. The USR's also seem to be a good bit more reliable than the
Penrils. They worked right out of the box... the Penrils went though several
ROM upgrades before they worked well. Some modems wouldn't connect to them.
Haven't seen that problem with the USR's. 


Good luck.

Later.
-- 
Dan Brown	
brown@ins.cwru.edu
From: bkwg0457@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Whitlock)
Subject: Re: 40% Discount of ZyXELs
Reply-To: bwhitlock@uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:46:49 GMT

hm002b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (hasit mehta) writes:

>... ZyXEL has been
>very good to me so far. I needed a ZyXEL ARA script and eventhough they did not
>have one they immediatally faxed me a 6 page document that instructed me how
>to make one. All in all I can say I have been extremly pleased with my ZyXEL
>and especially their tech support I used to own a USR v.32bis courier and I
>NEVER even was able to get through to USR it was ALWAYS busy! I have been
>able to get to ZyXEL EVERY SINGLE TIME. Anyways if you have a mac and
>want/need a good modem go for a ZyXEL.
>Hasit
> 

I was very interested in that 40% discount for designing a BBS intro screen
contest that they had.  I saw Tyrone's posting that the details were in 
a file called Contest.Zip on the Zyxel BBS.  I sent him an email message
requesting that he email me the file, as I did not want to make the long
distance call with my lowly modem to get the file.  I received no response.
I finally gave in and called, and the file did not exist!  I wasted over
20 minutes of long distance time looking for it.  I left a note to the
Sysop, Tyrone I believe is also the Sysop of that BBS, telling him that I
could not find it.  I asked him to email it to me, or tell me what it
was really called.  I left my email address, and I have heard nothing.  I
am not going to go into the misinformation I got from their university
sales respresentative when I called to find out if they had special
pricing schemes for educational/University purchases.  All in all, I was
very disappointed with their treatment of me, a potential customer.  I
bought a US Robotics 14.4Kbps FAX modem instead.


-- 
    * * * * * * --> DISCLAIMER:  I speak only for myself. <-- * * * * * *
Brent Whitlock		Beckman Institute for Advanced Science & Technology
bwhitlock@uiuc.edu	Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering
			University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner)
Subject: Re: Telebit WorldBlazer + Zyxel modems = no connect!
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:13:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.183254.23196@netcom.com> gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews) writes:
|If the Zyxel tries to make a fax connection, it's probably getting
|confused during the handshake and thinks the other modem is a fax modem.
|
|I don't know why it disconnects when it's set for data.

The ZyXEL's handshake sequence is to try v.32/v.32bis (the phase-reversing,
slighlty lower pitched carrier), then try v.22bis (the stable, higher carrier)
then FAX handshaking.  It sounds like the ZyXEL is missing the WB's
handshaking attempts and just going on with its normal handshaking sequence.
If you just call the ZyXEL with a telephone and listen to its handshaking,
you'll get the same thing - it'll try handshaking FAX if it's set for FAX, or
disconnect if not.

I can't tell you how long each sequence is, since I'm using my ZyXEL right now.
If it's important, send me email, and I'll dial it up and time it.

  Bill
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: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:02:26 GMT

gerg@netcom.com (Greg Andrews) writes:

>Hard to say.  If it's an important enough issue to spout off every
>few days about it, why haven't you called tech support and talked
>with a technician?

I've send numerous pieces of email inquiring about any enhancements,
all (or most of which) appears to be ignored.

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: bill@bilver.uucp (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Caller ID
Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:33:09 GMT

In article <H.sUIM8f2Na9k@harvee.billerica.ma.us> esj@harvee.billerica.ma.us writes:
>In <1517@airgun.wg.waii.com>, Scott Denham X7117 writes:

>>Simple. If I pay the phone company EXTRA for an unlisted number, I don't
>>want it available to any commercial caller I call. I got it in the first
>>place to avoid the annoying rash of telemarketing scams, pleas from semi-
>>legitimate charities, etc.

>interesting.  you can get the same effect as an unlisted number by
>listing your phone under a fake name and screening calls with an
>answering machine.  I've been doing that for the past 7+ years.  It
>works *great*.  I haven't had to deal with a phone pimp in years and
>people can still find me in the book if I tell them the key.

I don't know if this will work with a single phone installation or not,
but United Telephone will give you an unlisted number for a phone or
fax number.   They used to charge for that, and now it is free.

You might try asking for a phone for fax and see what happens. 



-- 
Bill Vermillion - bill@bilver.oau.org  bill.vermillion@oau.org
                - bill@bilver.uucp 
                - ..!{peora|ge-dab|tous|tarpit}!bilver!bill
From: rlm@mcgort.COM (Robert McMillin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: UUCP 'g' must die (was Re: USR DS v.32bis 10-15% faster thoughpu
Date: 11 Oct 92 14:22:36 GMT
Organization: PBSR (Private Beta Site Research - Certified NetWare Engineer)

mrapple@quack.sac.ca.us (Nick Sayer) writes:

> It's time for 'g' to 'g'o. Taylor 'a' is the best replacement I can
> think of, but until and unless we demand en masse that OS suppliers
> address the situation, we'll be stuck forever with a protocol
> designed when speeds were an order of magnitude slower.

Probably true, but given that ISDN appears at last to be approaching with
some certainty, and I might add, with the prodding of the hardware
manufacturers (NeXT, and supposedly, Apple), the response to fixing 'g'
is likely to be, "Not."  Modem links are the only reason to fix 'g'
in the first place, and while these won't go away in the forseeable
future, I suspect that in a couple of years this will largely be a moot
point.
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: fenner@postscript.cs.psu.edu (Bill Fenner)
Subject: Re: ZyXEL 16800bps?
Organization: Penn State Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 11:30:05 GMT

In article <csjohn.718590512@knuth> csjohn@knuth.mtsu.edu (The Mad Hatter) writes:
|I have a ZyXEL U1496E with version 5.02 EPROMs.  
|I tried connecting to a USR Dual Standard with AT&N35, but 
|could only get a 14400bps connection. 
|Does anyone know how I can connect at 16800bps?

You cannot.  USR's 16.8kbps protocol is proprietary, and is completely
different from ZyXEL's.  USR's is based on their HST protocol, which gives
you 16.8kbps in one direction and (I think) 450bps in the other.  ZyXEL's
is based on v.32bis (and they are making the specs available to any modem
maker), and gets you symmetrical 16.8kbps.

  Bill
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: bugs@atlantis.uucp (Dan Berry)
Subject: Re: Call display with Modems
Organization: Atlantis Communications, Edmonton, AB, Canada
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 04:53:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.212902.13641@hp1.holl.com> dave@hp1.holl.com (David Vrona) writes:
>>  . . . .
>>System Requirements:
>>                Serial port, Bell 202 or ClassMate modem, Caller ID service

:Fine, but just what are the chances that the original questioner has a
:modem which supports Bell 202?  Nobody claimed it couldn't be done given
:the right hardware.  But it can be said with near-certainty that someone
:who bought a modem in the past decade or so which supports 1200bps
:operation will have Bell 212A but /not/ Bell 202 capability.  The
:exception would be modems like Zyxel and Supra which have support
:specifically designed for caller-ID.
:
:		-Ed Hall
:		edhall@rand.org

David Vrona (dave@hp1.holl.com) wrote:
: RS-232 Cable:   Receive data and signal ground are the only leads that
:                 must be connected.  All others are ignored.

Well, it seems that the only modem that's going to fit this bill is my
ages-old "Manual Mini-Modem" -- the type that you manually dialed the phone
and flipped the SP3T answer/originate/off switch.  The same one that you
could even manage to get 600bps out of because it didn't have all the whiz-
bang CPU and timing circuitry modern modems have...

Gee, just like music, it seems that the oldies are coming around to haunt us
again!  :-)
-- 
Dan Berry			bugs%atlantis@kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca
==============================> bugs@atlantis.uucp  =========================
"On a first date, watch how your date treats the waiter, the bartender,
	and so on.  That's how she'll be treating YOU after three months."
From: jspencer@mips2.ma30.bull.com (Joel Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Speaking of terminal servers...
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:05:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: mips2.1992Oct14.210535.8171
Distribution: world
Organization: Bull HN Information Systems Inc.

In article <1992Sep26.152228.26354@xylogics.com> carlson@xylogics.com writes:
>
>One small note -- the Annex II does not have full modem controls
>(although it is configurable for DTR/DSR or RTS/CTS operation), but the
>Annex IIe does.
>

i do not mean to be overly pedantic, but, alot of server vendors (maybe all)
use this term "full modem control".  from what i can glean this generally
translates to supporting roughly 8 V.24 pins/leads.  the support of
this number of leads cannot come anywhere close to providing "full
modem control".  for example, what if i wanted to use V.54 loopback?
what if i needed DRS?

does anyone else get annoyed by this phrase or is it just me?
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Hacking USR ROMS [4.2 - 4.1]
Keywords: Supervisors.ROM.Hacks
Organization: The Gator Conferencing System 219-289-3745 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:45:57 GMT

lairdb@crash.cts.com (Laird P. Broadfield) writes:

>Interestingly enough, this is a flawed analogy, since scrambled signals
>transmitted across the airwaves are specifically protected by the ECPA.

I remember going up to Toronto a couple of years ago and there
were ads in the phonebook advertising modifications to the VCII

If it's in my backyard -- it's mine.

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Thursday, 15 Oct 1992 16:14:25 CDT
From: SALIM <U26043@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: 14.4K SPRTSTER & 9600FAX 4 SALE

The following items are for sale:

Sportster(U.S. Robotics) 14.4k internal modem w/fax send/receive
 9600 fax group III systems compatible.  14.4k modem v.32bis,
mnp5, v.42 & v.42bis error correction. (throughput of upto 57,600bps)
Software included. (group broadcast, background operation, delayed sending
and attribute retention).
            Price .................  $300.


9624 fax/modem card by GVC.
9600/4800/2400 fax send/receive/modem
CCITT v.29/v.27ter/v.22bits/v.22 int. standards.
supports bell 212a/103 standards.
Scheduled transmission & fax broadcast.(send multiple faxes)
more......

 Price ................. $69.00

Please note:  Both these modems are brand new with 5 year warranty. Price
              does not include s/h. In illinois add 7.75% tax.


If interested, please email.(or call)
                                            SALIM LAKHA
                                          U26043@UICVM.UIC.EDU
                                          (708)673-0915