NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/dcom/modems-part1/2753

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 5.9 KB

Path: news.leonardo.net!usenet
From: John White <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: Is 33.6 only available for USR?
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 18:17:17 -0800
Organization: Leonardo Internet
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4dd14b$[e-mail]> <4ddchf$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4dh7j3$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4dlt8f$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <4dqj68$[e-mail]> <eric- <4e5na1$[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: port13.fishnet.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0b6a (Win95; I)

doug haire wrote:
>
> [e-mail]>:
> Distribution:
>
> Eric Shaw ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : In article <4dqj68$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (doug haire) wrote:
> :
> : >Anthony Hill ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : >:
> : >: doug haire ([e-mail]) writes:
> : >: > John White ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : >: > : better. Many hundreds of hours of my testing with Courier, Sportster
> : >: > : PPI, Supra etc. show this is not the case. My Courier with the latest
> : >: > : 33.6 code only marginally outperforms my PPI LCD. On a connection to a
> : >: > : provider using Courier upgraded to 33k I achieve 28.8 about 80% of the
> : >: > : time. With the LCD I achieve 28.8 50% of the time. Now 33k is really a
> : >: > : big deal isn't it?
> : That's right, *IF* you have a near *PERFECT* line to connect above 28.8,
> : the Courier might perform just slightly better than the PPI or Supra on
> : compressed data.  For uncompressed data, a 33.6 connection on the Courier
> : may likely be slower than a 26.4K connection on most other modems.  The
> : compression in there is SLOW.  If you make a large file of just a few
> : bytes repeated over and over and send it between 2 USR's, you won't get
> : more than 6-7K/s, even if its all one byte repeating, because of either
> : the processing speed of the modem, or because of inefficient algorithms.
> : If the same file is transferred with a PPI or Supra or most other modems,
> : the transfer rate will be limited by your DTE rate, i.e. 115200 limits you
> : to a little above 11K/s, even if you lock the modems at 14.4K.
>
> BS... pure and simple... Here, take a look at this:
>
> {On}   08/05/94   5:49 am  26400 bps   ours II                08/05/94
> Z 983040 115200 bps 11327 cps   0 errors     1 1024 d:/download/1x30.tst 17972
> Z 327680 115200 bps 7465 cps   0 errors     0 1024 d:/download/2x10.tst 17972
> Z 196608 115200 bps 4302 cps   0 errors     0 1024 d:/download/3x06.tst 17972
> Z 131072 115200 bps 3173 cps   0 errors     0 1024 d:/download/4x04.tst 17972
> Z 524288 115200 bps 9395 cps   0 errors     0 1024 d:/download/5x16.tst 17972
> Z 306613 115200 bps 3276 cps   0 errors     0 1024 d:/download/telexchg.zip 17972
> {Off}  08/05/94   6:00 am  11:01        791-3625
>
> Please note the first line of the transfers. The file is a large, highly
> compressible file and the port speed is obviously 115200. The other files
> are of varying compressibility.
>
> I get so tired of people who make claims that are without any substance
> whatsoever.
>
> : >I believe there was a change included with the V.34+ upgrade (at least in
> : >the Courier) that improved speeds with the lower symbol rates, allowing a
> : >28.8k connect (stable) at a lower symbol rate. I could be wrong about
> : >this but I don't think so. I do know, subjectively speaking, that my
> : >unstable 28.8k connects became more stable when I went to the V.34+ and
> : >that I started getting more 28.8k connects than I had. Admittedly, this
> : >is subjective since I did not run control tests.
> : From what I've read, this is the case, which would help if your line has
> : limited bandwidth.  Haven't actually seen how much this helps - with the
> : lines here, a 3429 or 3200 symbol rate is almost always used, but the SNR
> : usually limits connections below 28.8K.
>
> Limited bandwidth? Would you care to tell me where I might find such a
> problem? Hmmmm? Is it on the SLC's as some have claimed? If so, please
> understand that the data lines at my home are all on an SLC and I get
> 31200 connects routinely. Would it be on copper lines, perhaps? Then
> explain the copper connection at my office which affords me regular 31200
> and the occasional 33600 connect to my home.
>
> Fed up with half-truths. Show me some DATA that supports this garbage you
> are putting out.
>
> : >: > There is more to that improvement than just the connect speed. Look into
> : >: > that Courier sometime and examine how it handles V.42 error correction.
> : Yeah, they went up to 244 byte LAPM packets (a wierd size, not a power of
> : 2), when a lot of Rockwell modems (and others) have long been using 256
> : byte packets, if not 512.
>
> A "lot of Rockwell modems"? Name some. My Supra certainly doesn't have it
> (running the 11/22/95 code). I do know that the Hayes Optima does support
> it. Who else? Zoom? BEC? Boca?
>
> : The v.42 negotiation between the USR and the newer, crappier PPI modems
> : has similar problems to the negotiation between it and the older PPI
> : modems.  The new ones use an AT&T chipset instead of a Rockwell one.  I
> : guess that must mean that AT&T and Rockwell have the same bugs <g>.
>
> I have no idea what bugs the AT&T chipset has, I do know that the
> Rockwell chipset has a rather nasty little bug. Look at your default
> Rockwell chipset settings. Note that %E0 is the default. Read what that
> does. Then wonder WHY that is the default.
>
> --
>  "Things are more like they are now than they ever were before."
>  [Dwight D. Eisenhower]

Nonsense. Your data show something VERY strange. The date is 8/5/94.
There was no 33.6 then. Please don't try and prove your point of view
with this "data" Ha! How can we beleive the data when something that
obvious is so SCREWED up!