--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2M00008Date: 02/17/98 From: FRANK SEXTON Time: 06:21pm \/To: MINH VAN (Read 4 times) Subj: null modem cable -=> /* Quoting Minh Van to Frank Sexton */ <=- MV> is there a difference between a null modem cable and a MV> serial (female-female) cable ? i'm trying to link two MV> PCs together for basic file xfers. FS> Yes. The xmt and rcv wires are crossed in a null modem FS> cable. That's what you need for what you're doing. MV> so you're saying i need the "null modem" cable instead MV> of a direct serial-serial linkup ? Right. A null modem cable is just a direct serial-serial cable with the xmt/rcv wires crossed. -Frank (fsexton@ibm.net - http://www.concentric.net/~fsexton) --- Blue Wave/OS2 v2.30 * Origin: Wildcard BBS - Thornton, CO 1-303-252-0491 (1:104/725) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2M00009Date: 02/17/98 From: FRANK SEXTON Time: 05:58pm \/To: MINH VAN (Read 4 times) Subj: null modem cable -=> /* Quoting Minh Van to Reggie Arford */ <=- MV> ok. so my current problem right now is that i've MV> bought a $14 2m serial-serial cable, and its totally MV> useless because you're saying that i need to switch MV> the rcv and xt wires on them which'll probably requre MV> some nifty soldering... Problem is that you can't have the transmit wire from one computer feeding into the transmit wire of another. They have to be reversed xmt/rcv. You might want to see if your local computer store has a null modem adapter for the end of the cable. -Frank (fsexton@ibm.net - http://www.concentric.net/~fsexton) --- Blue Wave/OS2 v2.30 * Origin: Wildcard BBS - Thornton, CO 1-303-252-0491 (1:104/725) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2M00010Date: 02/17/98 From: RICO SANCHEZ Time: 10:49pm \/To: CAREY BLOODWORTH (Read 4 times) Subj: TERBO v32 Greetings Carey, I happened to read your article to Joe Frankiewitz about the v32 Terbo. I used to have a text file on the "NEW" v32 standard. It described in detail all of the advantages of this "NEW" tech knowledge. It was clearly stated that 19.2 would be possible with this "NEW" Bell Laboritories blessed creation, soon to be accepted a new modem standard. It was quite a while ago, and I had that TXT FILE for the longest time. I would love to send you a copy, but I lost all of that data in a H/D crash. You can however look thru old NIGHTOWL CD-ROMS, I know it was on either #8 or #9 or #10B. (Do you remember the stink about the original N.O.#10 having a virus) Recalled all of the #10 and released #10B I used to run a COMMODORE BBS on a C-64 & (2) 1541 Floppies in 1987, I move up to a USED XT in 1990. Added a 1X CD-ROM in Late 92, that was about the time #8 & #9 were released. I paid $ 396.00 for my first INTEL 14.4 EX in early 1993. It was shortly after that I saw the text file about the v32 "IN THE FUTURE" I know it don't help much, but whatever USR, or anybody else says, from the time it was envisioned, until actually came ON-LINE the v32 standard was 19.2 Terbo. I do however have some actual printed information that came with my Digicom 14.4 D/F Modem that came with the software upgrade to 19.2 if that will help. I to describes the origins, and design of v32 Terbo. Even with the upgrade it never hit 19.2, except with another 19.2 Terbo Modem. Treu Satement! --- Maximus 3.01 * Origin: Midnight Express (1:157/110) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2M00011Date: 02/17/98 From: DAVID BOWERMAN Time: 05:12pm \/To: RICHARD TOWN (Read 4 times) Subj: Negociations (SP) Richard Town wrote in a message to David Bowerman: RT> Don't think I've said any of the above. Rather I've bemoaned the RT> lack of interop. I would've thought you, and Craig, and others RT> would've joined me in whinging about lack of interop too. But RT> instead you've chosen to attempt polarisation of views -- which RT> does no good for future users at all Richard, Lucent and 3Com are committed to doing interop testing. For that matter so are ZyXEL. The only major name missing from the list is Rockwell. Lucent and 3Com are both setting up their own servers to allow any manufacturer to call in to test their client implementations. 3Com and Lucent will also be calling other manufacturer's servers with their clients. DB> But then, I mustn't forget that to you, anything screwed up by DB> Rockwell is the fault of other folks for not being able to handle DB> Rockwell's screwups. RT> RT> And still there's nothing about USR's once fabled V34 interop... DB> Harping on USR's not keeping up with Rockwell's screwup of the week DB> again? RT> By deliberately only supporting one camp, and choosing to attack RT> any other supporters you are as guilty as the "suits" who care damn RT> all about the product, but only the bottom line. Richard, you spend your time dumping on USR and expect us to mistake you for an "impartial" observer? I haven't seen one message from you commenting on Rockwell's screwups as being the cause of that lack on interoperability though Craig Ford, for one, has posted the relevant data on several occasions. Where are your messages dumping on Rockwell for screwing up their handshaking? Oh, yeah, that's USR's fault. RT> It's time to come off that fence that you've, perhaps inadvertenly, RT> impaled yourself on. Do you, or do you not support interop? If RT> no, then no response is necessary. If yes, then constructive RT> comments as to how this can be achieved would be welcome. RT> Especially since, if the postings you've made are to be believed as RT> becoming reality, the "free_jollies_in_Geneva_all_paid RT> _for_by_the_taxpayer" brigade have failed. I support interop. I will blame USR if they screw up. I will blame Lucent if they screwup. I will blame Rockwell if they screw up. Please note a couple of facts: 1. Lucent is committed to V.90 interop testing 2. 3Com is committed to V.90 interop testing 3. ZyXEL is committed to V.90 interop testing 4. Rockwell has stated they will not participate in interop testing with other manufacturers. Now which of the above companies is going to produce a chipset that will have problems due to a lack of testing? Which company has stated that USR V.90 modems will not be able to connect with their V.90 servers at speeds over v.34? Which company flogged K56Plus modem chipsets as K56Flex chipsets? Which company failed to do testing when they implemented a proprietary modification of the v.42 handshake? Regards, David --- timEd/2 1.10+ * Origin: Frog Hollow -- a scenic backroad off the Infobahn (1:153/290) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2M00012Date: 02/17/98 From: DAVID BOWERMAN Time: 05:22pm \/To: RICHARD TOWN (Read 4 times) Subj: Negociations (SP) Richard Town wrote in a message to David Bowerman: RT> That's a story. Or is v.pcm SG16 recommendation to ITU(t) already RT> riddled with possible incompatabilities? DB> Hardly a story in the accepted sense of a work of fiction. It is a DB> story in the sense of a report of the known facts concerning the matter DB> in question. RT> True, somebody somewhere has said something. But the implications RT> are far more serious. For if V.90 is so riddled with RT> incompatibilities as to render is useless, then of what use _is_ RT> ITU(t) in this regard? Perhaps you should check out a copy of the V.90 draft before babbling on about it being riddled with incompatibilities. RT> I've often opined that it it's the silicon processors that have RT> control in the New World Order. But I'd never expected that the RT> NWO would've been seen to have usurped democracy so fast, nor as RT> blatently DB> If you have a source for your belief that those reports are incorrect DB> (other than your simple child-like faith that Rockwell can do no DB> wrong), please post that source. Either a quote or a url will do. RT> Erm, what belief is this, David? Your claims that the reports that Rockwell will not be doing interop testing are stories -- as in fiction. So please post information from another Rockwell official stating that the comments from a Rockwell VP that Rockwell would not participate in interop testing are false. Or perhaps you could post information showing that Lucent, 3Com and ZyXEL representatives were lying about doing interop testing. Your choice. To put it bluntly, put up or shut up. If you can't post any such information, stuff your bloody Zoom modem into any convenient body orifice and quit wasting our time with your attempts as a Rockwell apologist. RT> Still no response on V34 interop (the original thread) whilst RT> gushing all over V.90... Richard, you have had several messages posted to you on the V.34 problems. You might remember the ones from Craig Ford with the data output showing how Rockwell's implementation misreported it's capabilities? The messages that you seem to conveniently disregard in your whining about USR. Regards, David --- timEd/2 1.10+ * Origin: Frog Hollow -- a scenic backroad off the Infobahn (1:153/290) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2N00000Date: 02/18/98 From: JOHN ALDRICH Time: 07:14am \/To: JONATHAN MICHAELS (Read 4 times) Subj: microcom deskporte fast plus Hello Jonathan! Sunday February 15 1998 12:32, Jonathan Michaels wrote to all: JM> yup i have one of those old dinosaurs still at 28k8, i am interested in JM> upgrading it to 33k6 operations .. is thier a new flashrom, i look at he JM> microcom site, but my old lynx web browser gets all confused with the JM> microsoftised webpages .. its not so amusing anymore. Well, I don't know about an upgrade for the zone 3 modems, but there IS a flash-rom upgrade for the DPFs here in the US. Try using FTP and FTP into microcom.com.... John ... I just got stopped by LAPD and am I really beat. --- GoldED/386 2.50+ 91LM1 * Origin: The Dungeon BBS 33.6/V.34 24-hours 423/875-4137 (1:362/669) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2N00001Date: 02/17/98 From: RICK COLLINS Time: 11:07pm \/To: RICHARD TOWN (Read 4 times) Subj: Negociations (SP) At 15:04/10/Feb, Richard Town (2:254/235) said: ==================================== RT> Don't see anything wrong with this. DB>> January 29, 1998 - - The arrival of an international standard for DB>> 56-kbps modems was supposed to clear up a lot of marketplace DB>> confusion. But on Thursday, analysts, modem vendors, and Internet DB>> service providers indicated that things may get worse before they get DB>> better. RT> This would appear to vindicate my position DB>> Beguwala says that users of older K56flex modems will be able to DB>> connect at approximately 56 kbps rates to V.pcm remote access DB>> equipment based on Rockwell chips. And x2 users will be able to DB>> connect to V.pcm-equipped 3Com ports. But even with V.pcm code on both DB>> ends, an x2 device connected to a K56flex device will top out at the DB>> 33.6 kbps of today's V.34 standard. RT> An x2 device is not a V.90 device. What is the point here? You've got to read it, Richard. "Even with V.pcm code on both ends..." pretty much says it all. Beguwala is essentially saying Rockwell predicts the Rockwell V.90 implementation won't be compatible with the 3Com or Lucent implementation... and you can ask him why he predicts that will be the case. RT> But with so many vested interests in both RT> makes of server, it would appear that there are already commercial RT> pressures involving themselves to defeat the purpose of an ITU(t) RT> recognised standard. And since Lucent and 3Com are prepared to conduct interop tests, and Rockwell isn't - what conclusion do you draw from that? RT> Don't think I've said any of the above. Rather I've bemoaned the lack of RT> interop. I would've thought you, and Craig, and others would've joined e RT> in whinging about lack of interop too. But instead you've chosen to RT> attempt polarisation of views -- which does no good for future users at all Au contraire, mon amis. I have bemoaned Rockwell's apparent position - not to do interop testing - not because they are Rockwell but because they apparently don't want to do interop testing. RT> By deliberately only supporting one camp, and choosing to attack any ther RT> supporters you are as guilty as the "suits" who care damn all about RT> the product, but only the bottom line. Well, gee, since Lucent and 3Com have agreed to do interop testing, and Rockwell hasn't - whose position do _you_ think should be supported? Rick --- Msged 4.00 * Origin: The Warlock's Cave, Ottawa ON (1:163/215.39) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2N00002Date: 02/17/98 From: RICK COLLINS Time: 11:14pm \/To: RICHARD TOWN (Read 4 times) Subj: Negociations (SP) At 09:24/13/Feb, Richard Town (2:254/235) said: ==================================== RT> -=> Quoting Rick Collins to Richard Town <=- RC>> It is _now_. It wasn't _then_. And you don't accept Rockwell's own RC>> statements to the effect that they were not going to conduct interop RC>> testing with 3Com/Lucent? RT> Given that there's not (as of this date) any V90 modems out there who can RT> say whether there's no interop or not That's not the point. The point is Rockwell has said they're not prepared to do any interop testing with 3Com and Lucent. RC>> I'm asking for the specific changes, BTW, since it was your contention RC>> that USR released an non-compliant version of V.34 because they RC>> released it before the standard was ratified. RT> Havn't said that either. It may be V34 complient, but if V34 doesn't RT> guarantee interop, then what good is it? More to the point tho. If RT> some modems don't offer interop then that could be a matter of interest for RT> the trade press That is exactly what you claimed, Richard. That USR rushed to market with V.34, before the standard was ratified, and the result was an incompatible modem. DO you now admit there was _no difference_ to the spec between the time USR offered the modems and the standard was ratified? A simple question, to which Yes or No would suffice. Rick --- Msged 4.00 * Origin: The Warlock's Cave, Ottawa ON (1:163/215.39) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2N00003Date: 02/17/98 From: RICK COLLINS Time: 11:19pm \/To: MINH VAN (Read 4 times) Subj: null modem cable At 07:37/12/Feb, Minh Van (3:713/622) said: ==================================== MV>> is there a difference between a null modem cable and a MV>> serial (female-female) cable ? i'm trying to link two MV>> PCs together for basic file xfers. FS>> Yes. The xmt and rcv wires are crossed in a null modem FS>> cable. That's what you need for what you're doing. MV> so you're saying i need the "null modem" cable instead of a direct MV> serial-serial linkup ? If you intend to connect two PCs directly, yes. Rick --- Msged 4.00 * Origin: The Warlock's Cave, Ottawa ON (1:163/215.39) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 105 HIGH SPEED MODEM Ref: F2N00004Date: 02/17/98 From: RICK COLLINS Time: 11:20pm \/To: MINH VAN (Read 4 times) Subj: null modem cable At 13:18/14/Feb, Minh Van (3:713/622) said: ==================================== MV> ok. so my current problem right now is that i've bought a $14 2m MV> serial-serial cable, and its totally useless because you're saying that i MV> need to switch the rcv and xt wires on them which'll probably requre some MV> nifty soldering... Just buy a null-modem adaptor. It does the "reversing" for you, just as a null-modem cable would. Rick --- Msged 4.00 * Origin: The Warlock's Cave, Ottawa ON (1:163/215.39)