HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wgb@succubus.tnt.com (William G. Bunton)
Subject: Re: Telebit Loyalty pays
Organization: Tools & Techniques, Inc.
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:18:55 GMT

In article <3Be5iB1w164w@zswamp.UUCP> geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
>wgb@succubus.tnt.com (William G. Bunton) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Apr10.043422.5768@Happy-Man.com> Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com w
>> >We were loyal, and they are being loyal.  The disloyal folks now
>> >have to pay more.  That's the way it should be.
>> 
>> Bull.  What about those of us who didn't have the money?  I got a
>> bonus check on April 6, but that was too late for the (original, with
>> PEP upgrade) loyalty pays deal.  And for this I'm called disloyal?

Okay, let's recap this so far.  A number of people have speculated
about whether or not the LPA T3000 includes the PEP upgrade free.  It
was finally decided it probably didn't.

People have said they wish it did, and maybe Telebit would prolong the
free PEP upgrade, just like the prolonged the original half-price deal
on the TB+.  To this, Irving Wolfe responded (and this is a
paraphrase, though I believe it conveys his intent):

"I paid good money for the LP modem and free PEP upgrade.  That offer
is over.  I was loyal.  If you didn't buy in that period, you were not
loyal.  I bought before I wanted to, to get the free upgrade.  If you
didn't, you were disloyal".

To this, I replied:  "I couldn't [for one of a number of valid
reasons] respond within the offer period.  I therefore wish it was
extended also.  Why does this make me disloyal?"

Your response was:
>
>   Bull yourself.  Telebit is offered you a deal and made it available for a 
>couple of months.  It is not their responsibility to compensate for the fact 
>that not all customers can take advantage of the offer.

Did you even both to read what I wrote, or any of the previous
articles in the thread?  What you wrote above has ABSOLUTELY NO
RELEVANCE to what I wrote (except maybe your first two words, but they
preface a totally irrelevant posting, so I have to consider them
irrelevant also).

>   Should they have called each of their customers up to ask when it would be 
>convenient?!?  Or should they just have sent you the whole new modem for $25?

Of course not.  Did I say they should?  Yes, it would be nice if they
would send me a whole new modem for $25.  Did I ask them to?  No.  Do
I expect them to?  No.  Am I upset because they won't?  No.  Did you
read any of the thread I was responding to?  I guess not.

>  Come on, man... I know your frustration, but this is *not* Telebit's fault! 
>It's one thing to say "aw, shucks!" and another to blame Telebit.

I know it's not Telebit's fault, I never said it was.  I certainly
don't blame Telebit, I was responding to someone who was, in essance,
calling me (and a number of other Telebit customers) disloyal for
wishing/hoping/dreaming that Telebit would continue past practice, by
extending some of their good deals.

-- 
William G. Bunton              | An engineer is a man who can do for five bob
wgb@succubus.tnt.com           | what any bloody fool can do for a quid.
Tools & Techniques, Austin, TX |                        -- origin unknown
From: datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Telebit Loyalty pays
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:12:41 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


>And if you aren't an American you can't possibly be loyal so you will
>have to pay up as well.

Your government is not our fault.
-- 


======================================================8--<
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Speed tests on the Supra v.32bis modem
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:50:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: sgi.jdve6l0
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA

In article <bttj0m_.wolfgang@netcom.com>, wolfgang@netcom.com (Wolfgang Henke) writes:
> ...
> Are there other or better reasons? And how would one go about reducing the
> latency?

From the little I've measured, different modems have differing qualities of
implementations.  On the first ping, most do about the same terrible
more than 225 milliseconds.  The better ones eventually get better,
presumably as their v.42bis dictionaries or whatever accomodate to
the data.

> A related question is how much difference would it make to use CSLIP instead
> of SLIP? 

Van Jacobson TCP/IP header compression does not affect ICMP packets,
including ECHO REQUEST and ECHO REPLY used by ping.  In fact, a natural
mode in the 4.3BSD reference code refuses to forward ICMP's at all.  I
suspect this is because some SLIP connections to violet.berkeley.edu have
used 2400 b/s modems.

You shouldn't care how TCP header compression would affect things, although
I bet anyone with the resources to test modems with ping knows about and
uses header compression.  If you're comparing modems to modems, hold
everything else constant.  You want the fastest modem you can afford.
Reducing the bytes you send over the link helps the fast modems as well as
the slow.  I think v.32bis is 10 or 100 times too slow to not care about
the about 35 bytes/TCP-packet saved by TCP/IP header compression.

> Also is there a correlation between chipsets and latency? The ZyXEL seems 
> to do OK with a Motorola DSP and I believe a 68000, but the Supra, based on 
> the Rockwell set is doing not so well. Is the T3000 based on a DSP?
> How about the Digicom?

I know nothing of the Supra.  Among the 3 pairs I've tested, ZyXEL, DSI,
and Telebit, ZyXEL is slowest even with S40=1.  The ZyXEL is a lot cheaper
than the others, which compenstates maybe enough.  No matter what you buy
now, in 2 years it will be obsolete junk.


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com
From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Telebit Loyalty pays
Date: 15 Apr 92 13:51:12 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <2Ba8iB2w164w@zswamp.UUCP> geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
>   You challenge Telebit's integrity because they don't take advantage of a 
>loophole in the law and encourage, let alone condone, their customers to do 
>something illegal.
>
I did no such thing.

>   Look, Mac, you're upset because the situation isn't in your favour... but 
>don't try to make Telebit look like a second rate company because they have 
>chosen not to pull a low (though legal) stunt like the one you suggest.  And 
>don't be telling me (rudely) how little I know about British law when your own 
>statements illuminate the unethical nature of selling unapproved modems to 
>consumers.
>
There is nothing unethical about it. It is about as unethical as minimising
tax payments.

You also seem to be confusing ethics and the law.





-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@rtf.bt.co.uk
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: louie@sayshell.umd.edu (Louis A. Mamakos)
Subject: Re: Does Zyxel have Caller ID and Voice Messaging?
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 02:58:14 GMT

In article <WBE.92Apr13201927@crystal.bbn.com> wbe@bbn.com (Winston Edmond) writes:
>I believe the current ZyXEL modems are not capable of supporting either
>Caller ID or digitized voice, and I've not heard of any claims or plans to
>support those features.

Given that the ZyXEL modems have a 68000 and two TI DSPs to do the
dirty work, "not capable" seems a little strong..  I wouldn't think
that it would take a whole lot 'o DSP code or horsepower to implement
a Bell-202 modem to catch the Caller-ID data as it goes by.  And since
the DSP code seems to be loaded from the ROMs, it COULD be possible to do.

Of course, it doesn't do it NOW..

louie
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.mac.comm
From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
Subject: Re: Supra V.32bis (Disappointment)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 15:15:22 GMT

karches@utdallas.edu (Tom Karches) writes:
>There should be no argument that RS-422 (on the Mac & Sun) are
>technically superior to RS-232. RS-422 can support up to at least
>230 kbps with longer maximum cable length due to the balanced
>transmit and recieve lines.
*----
No argument... and I'll bet that both of us could come up with
interfaces technically superior to both rs-232 and rs-422.  But
all of my serial devices that I want to use are rs-232, so
guess which one is better for all my applications?

--
	Mike Berger
	Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
	AT&TNET     217-244-6067
	Internet    berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: rfarris@rfengr.com (Rick Farris)
Subject: Re: DOS telecomm prelim. I like XTALK for Windows
Organization: RF Engineering, Del Mar, California
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 01:46:12 GMT

In article <CATONE.92Apr15150608@drachma.wharton.upenn.edu> catone@drachma.wharton.upenn.edu (Tony Catone) writes:

> I don't think it is fair to criticize obsolete programs
> just because one is too cheap to buy the real version.

Too cheap?  Are you joking?  I'm the designated software
buyer for Southern California!  :-)

I'm the guy who bought 2 copies of ProYAM, XTALK for
Windows, registered my Qmodem, *and* bought a copy of
ProComm Plus, just to get the IBM terminal emulation.
And I'm thinking of registering Telemate.

That doesn't change the fact that PC+ emulations are good
but not great.  XTALK for Windows is much better, at least
in the VT arena.

BTW, anyone thinking of a shareware Comm program should have
a peek at Telemate.  It does a phenomenal number of things
right. 


--
Rick Farris  RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014  voice (619) 259-6793
rfarris@rfengr.com     ...!ucsd!serene!rfarris      serenity bbs 259-7757
From: Jeff.Lindstrom@ofa123.fidonet.org (Jeff Lindstrom)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Modem for use in US, Sweden, AND Germany
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 12:33:30 PDT
Organization: Universal Electronics Inc. (Public access BBS)

  According to the documentation that came with my Supra V.32bis FAXModem, all data rates from 2400 bps and up conform to international standards (CCITT), so your only problem should be the physical interconnect to the phone plugs in these countries.



--  

Jeff Lindstrom
Internet: Jeff.Lindstrom@ofa123.fidonet.org
Compuserve: >internet:Jeff.Lindstrom@ofa123.fidonet.org
Xref: sparky comp.dcom.modems:6330 comp.sys.mac.comm:4469
From: dplatt@ntg.com (Dave Platt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.sys.mac.comm
Subject: Re: Supra V.32bis (Disappointment)
Keywords: supra, v.32bis, v32bis, mac, macintosh
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:22:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: ntg.1992Apr7.172259.2561
Organization: New Technologies Group, Inc.  Palo Alto CA

In article <1992Apr3.230641.16672@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jsm2r@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (John S. Mitchell) writes:

>Using the modem on a Mac IIsi, I set my software for hardware handshaking
>and a communication rate of 57600 (computer to modem). Much to my chagrin,
>the text that came through from all the bbs's I tried was marred by
>numerous dropouts, i.e. characters were missing in places where they should
>have been. This also happened if I changed the settings to software (XON/
>XOFF) flow control. 
>
>Supra Tech solved my problem but only by dashing my hopes and dreams.
>Their story was that the Mac serial port can connect to modems at no better
>than 19200 baud. Turning down the speed indeed solved the dropout problem,
>but as the Supra guy told me, it effectively eliminated making use of the
>speed advantage of v.32bis or data compression at high connect speeds.
>Supra told me that the only way to use that extra speed capability was to

>My question to the net is, doesn't this seem a little fishy?

I regularly use a USR HST Dual Standard at a serial-port speed of 38400,
on a Mac IIci or a IIfx.  In both cases, everything works fine...

... UNLESS LocalTalk is turned on and is active.  Apparently, when the
Mac recieves a LocalTalk packet (via the printer port), the LocalTalk
receiver code turns off interrupts and sucks the bytes out of the SCC
via a polling loop... the packet is arriving too fast for an
interrupt-based receiver mechanism to work.

The LocalTalk-receiver loop does NOT poll the modem-port portion of the
SCC, during the time that interrupts are turned off.  This doesn't cause
a problem at 19200 bps, as far as I can tell... apparently, a maximum-
length LocalTalk packet can be polled in before the modem-port SCC
buffer overflows.  However, if you've receiving modem data at 38400 or
57600 bps, the modem-port SCC buffers can overflow before the LocalTalk
packet ends and interrupts are reenabled.

>                                                       I've known
>people who use Macs with USR HSTs with what seemed like full speed capability.
>Likewise, these same serial ports can be used with LocalTalk networking that
>operates at 250kbaud. Somebody tell me Supra is off their collective rocker,
>and that I can make full use of this inexpensive (but not THAT inexpensive)
>modem.

You _should_ be able to, I would think... I don't believe that the IIsi is
that much slower than the IIci.

-- 
Dave Platt                                                VOICE: (415) 813-8917
              Domain: dplatt@ntg.com      UUCP: ...netcomsv!ntg!dplatt
 USNAIL: New Technologies Group Inc. 2468 Embarcardero Way, Palo Alto CA 94303
From: osg@aeglos.hanse.de (Oliver Giessler)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Compressed files and v.32bis
Date: 13 Apr 92 06:22:34 GMT
Reply-To: osg@aeglos.hanse.de (Oliver Giessler)
X-Mailer: uAccess - Macintosh Release: 1.5v4


In article <1992Apr11.013238.6595@news.unomaha.edu> (comp.dcom.modems), 
SLENDT@athena.unomaha.edu (STEVE LENDT - C&DC NETWORK ) writes:
> 
>    A lot of the files that get transmitted over modems have been
> compressed (zip, arc, etc).  What kind of effect does this have
> on transfer times over a pair of v.32bis modems?  I've been told
> that if you transfer an lharc compressed file using Zmodem or
> simple binary Kermit that the transfer times will be close.
> Is this true?  I would think there would be more to it than that.
> 
There is no effect (beside the one that v.32bis is faster than V32). I gues
that  you are mixing v.32bis with compression methods like MNP5 or V42.bis.
When using MNP 5 there is an unnecessary try to compact the allready compactet
archiv and this will slow down the average cps rate. But V42.bis is smarter.
It will recognice the status of the file it is transfering. If there is nothing
to compact anymore V42.bis will not try to do so. And so the cps rates will
not slow down.
Ego: Use V42.bis or MNP 4 but never MNP 5 when transfering compacted files

Oliver

---------------------------------------------------
Oliver Giessler - Kulenwisch 12- W 2000 Hamburg 63 - Germany
Fax: +49 40 538 47 68   -  eMail: osg@aeglos.hanse.de
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Thursday, 9 Apr 1992 23:40:45 EDT
From: <JAYMS@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Microcom modem


I've come upon 2 Microcom QX/4232hs high speed modems and have some
"simple" questions regarding their use with my Mac IIci.

   1. What kind of modem cable do I need & where do I get one? I've
        heard my regular serial cable to my 2400 baud modem won't
        work for high speed modems.

   2. Software recommendations?? I currently use MacTerminal, Tincan 5.0
         ( for connecting to VM mainframe ), Liason ( for connecting my
         home Mac IIci to my office localtalk network ), and Compuserve
         Navigator. Most of these have software options for 19600 but
         Microcom QX modem hardware manual seems to indicate you should
         set computer for max speed of 38,400. How do I do that?

    Any other suggestions? I'm just starting out with high speed modems
   - only using 2400 baud right now. What else do I need to know? THANKS!
From: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Loyalty Pays Again and PEP upgrade?
Date: 7 Apr 92 07:11:21 GMT
Reply-To: rogerk@QueerNet.ORG (Roger B.A. Klorese)
Organization: QueerNet

In article <8665@emory.mathcs.emory.edu>, km@mathcs.emory.edu (Ken Mandelberg)
writes:
|> The Telebit posting describing Loyalty Pays Again didn't say anything
|> about PEP for the T3000's in the offering. Anyone know if its
|> included?
|> 
|> One would think that since the PEP upgrade is due in a few weeks, that
|> they may be thinking that by the time a LPA modem ships that PEP will
|> be in the product.
|> 
|> On the other hand I thought the T3000 was going to change names when
|> PEP shipped in it?

Then why tell you about it now?  I thought we didn't want vendors to
pre-announce...
-- 
ROGER B.A. KLORESE                                              +1 415 ALL-ARFF
rogerk@unpc.QueerNet.ORG                 {ames,decwrl,pyramid}!mips!unpc!rogerk
"Normal is not something to aspire to, it's something to get away from."
                                                                   -- J. Foster
From: linda@linda.intel.com (Linda Harbin)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Hayes modem & Smartcom II
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:50:23 GMT
Reply-To: linda@linda.intel.com (Linda Harbin)
Organization: Intel Corp., Hillsboro, Oregon


I recently got a Hayes modem with Smartcom II software.  I am told I need to
set the utility to E71 but I know NOTHING about modems or communication
software.  I have looked everywhere conceivable in the Smartcom II to find
an entry for the utility but I can't find it.  Is there other wording (other
than 'utility' that I should look for?  The problem is that when I get 
connected to a computer, I get '????' scrolled across the screen and it just
keeps scrolling.  I am told it is because the utility is not set to E71.
Can anyone in netland enlighten me on what I need to do? 

***************************************************
	Linda Harbin
    linda@littlei.intel.com
    Hillsboro, Oregon
***************************************************
From: darcey@coos.dartmouth.edu (Terrance M Darcey)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Maximum Speed / Line Length for v.35
Date: 9 Apr 92 12:40:16 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH

What are the maximum speed and cable lengths for v.35?...If there is a tradeoff
(I assume there is), what would be the maximum speed for a short connection
(15 ft) and for a longish connection (300-500 ft)?...Suggestions for recommended
reading would also be appreciated...

Thanks in advance for any assistance (e-mail replies preferred)...

Terrance M. Darcey, PhD
terrance.m.darcey@dartmouth.edu
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: keith@ksmith.uucp (Keith Smith)
Subject: Re: UART
Organization: Keith's Computer, Hope Mills, NC
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 92 17:52:21 GMT

In article <TwNwiB1w164w@ricksys.LoneStar.org> rick@ricksys.LoneStar.org (Richard McCombs) writes:
>Any advice if My PC has one 8250B on the motherboard that cannot be
>disabled only switched to either COM1 or COM2, so if I added a board with
>a 16550 as the second port it would probably have to be COM3 and some
>software doesn't like to talk to COM3.

Possibilities:

1) Get a new motherboard.

2) Get the other serial card and configure the '550 as COM2 and the port
on the MB as COM 1. or Vice Versa.

3) Just clip the pins on the 8250B and Totally remove it from the
motherboard, and add another card for COM1/2.

-- 
Keith Smith          uunet!ksmith!keith            5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs      BBS 1-919-423-4216            Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
From: s020@brems.ii.uib.no (Boerre Z. Jensen)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: NEED info on modems!
Date: 9 Apr 92 07:22:43 GMT
Organization: DevNull A/S


HELP!

Can anyone help me with doc's on the modem?
I need info about:
      - How it works
      - Technical spesification
      - History
      - etc.

Please mail me, or tell me where I can find such info.

Thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou!!!

------------------------------------------------------
     ///// ////////
    //  //     //
   // //     //    Jensen
  //  //   //
 /////   ////////  Email:  s020@brems.ii.uib.no
------------------------------------------------------
From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock)
Subject: Re:  New modem transfer protocol
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:02:06 GMT

dej@qpoint.amiga.ocunix.on.ca (David Jones) writes:
+---------------
| PEP is real bad in that it's unidirectional.  Send ONE byte down the
| back channel and you take 10 seconds to retrain for the turn-around.
| If you have a PEP, stick with Zmodem.
+---------------

Where did you get the idea that PEP needs to retrain every time the line
turns around? This is *NOT* true! With a 9600 baud serial port, I can get
*sustained* 880 bytes/sec from FTP over TCP over *non*-header-compressed SLIP
over PEP. [You have choose your parameters well: 512 bytes TCP MSS, 4096 byte
window.] Watching with an RS-232 LED monitor, the forward channel barely blips
when the TCP ACK comes back the other way.

And with SLIP with header compression, the ACK will fit in a 1/7-second
fast burst.


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510		rpw3@sgi.com
Silicon Graphics, Inc.		(415)335-1673
2011 N. Shoreline Blvd.
Mountain View, CA  94039-7311

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
From: vjs@rhyolite.wpd.sgi.com (Vernon Schryver)
Subject: Re: v.42bis software
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 01:44:44 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.193500.2281@cubetech.com>, andrew@cubetech.com (Andrew Loewenstern) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.040838.4331@wsrcc.com> wolfgang@wsrcc.com (Wolfgang S.  
> Rupprecht) writes:
> 
> >  I'm thinking of hacking v.42bis into the CSLIP driver and turning it
> >  off on the modem.  This should decrease the load on the CPU by quite a
> >  bit by shedding all that needless I/O.
> 
> v.42bis will consume more CPU time than the extra I/O from uncompressed data  
> unless you have DSP in your computer or really unbelieveably inefficient i/o.


You're comparing incomparable things, the CPU cycles needed to compress vs.
the bit rate of the DTE-DCE interface.

One might compare the CPU cycles required to push more bytes thru the DTE
wires with the CPU cycles to compress, but that is not interesting.  It
should take far more cycles to compress, but those cycles are high latency
cycles.  The cycles needed to care and feed a USART at 56K or higher are
precious.  Consider the person who recently complained that MAC's can't
keep up at 38.4 (or was it 19.2?).  He finally reported that the problem
was some kind of extra daemons he was running.  Is there any doubt that his
MAC was still essentially idle even while running those daemons and not
keeping up with the modem?

It's easy to have a machine 30 times a VAX-780 on you desk.  750's and
780's could handle dozens of 9600 bit/sec lines.  Does this mean your new
machine can handle several T1 lines?  (25 lines * 9600 * 30)

I know of cheap UNIX machines (well, $10,000) that run 16-bit uncompress at
about 0.4MByte/sec.  Such a machine would be less then 0.5% busy keeping a
v.32bis modem 100% saturated.  (14400/(8*400000))


Vernon Schryver,  vjs@sgi.com