NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/dcom/modems-part1/8084

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 3.8 KB

Path: inforamp.net!usenet
From: Thomas Malcolmson <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,comp.dcom.fax,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.comm
Subject: Re: USR 33.6 Data/Fax: Won't work with WinFax
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 00:32:10 -0500
Organization: InfoRamp Inc., Toronto, Ontario [phone]
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <4hqfgu$[e-mail]> <4i1mn2$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ts2-11.tor.inforamp.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Win95; I)

OK, I finally got my answer.

'A reliable source' informed me that it is rare to get reliable faxing
from a Sportster Vi modem, and that if I wanted a fax/modem with good,
reliable fax capability I should buy one of the SupraFAXmodem line.

This (plus years of frustration) was enough to make me finally abandon
my investment in USR.  So I bought a Supra and it works perfectly (so
far).  What a relief.  And, apparently, Supra has just come out with a
V34 voice/fax/modem, so I'll probably replace some of my other USR's
when these new Supras become available.


David Schick wrote:
>
> Thomas Malcolmson <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >My experience with USR & WinFax suggests that the CNG tone requirement
> >is not the problem.
> >
> >I have used WinFax 3, 4, & 7, with many 14.4 & 28.8 USR modems and have
> >always had intermittant problems sending and receiving.  My problems are
> >very inconsistent: some destinations might give me more trouble than
> >others, but even the worst work sometimes, and even the best don't at
> >other times.  This result seems incompatible with the CNG tone problem.
> >
> >I have spent a lot of time on this problem over the last few years, and
> >am very frustrated (I won't get into why I have had to stick with USR -
> >I'll just say that I recommend them for data, but not for faxing or
> >support).
>
> Have you tried limiting the fax transmission speed to 9600?
>
> I have had a SupraFaxModem 14.4 for about three years and have never
> been able to send a 14.4 fax to a long distance location.  Local
> calls, or at 9600 or recieving either 14.4 and 9600 faxes work 90% of
> the time.  Given that this was one of the first 14.4 faxmodems on the
> market its not too suprising.
>
> The problem is difficult to pin down because of so many variables: the
> UART, the OS, the fax software.  I've used Winfax Lite,3.0, 4.0,
> FaxMail, the ZetaFax demo, and several others under Windows NT.
>
> I've been able to get around the problem of faxing to long distance
> 14.4 machines by using Class 1 which forces sending the fax at 9600.
> Setting maximum transmission rates using Class 2 seem to be ignored by
> my modem.
>
> Anyways, my point is that maybe its not just the USR sportster that
> has a problem with faxing but perhaps something common to faxmodems.
> The Rockwell chipset perhaps?  Thought I read somewhere that the
> sportster doesn't use the Rockwell.
>
> Perhaps one thing to try is forcing the speed down to 9600 to see if
> some of the problems disappear.  Although this wouldn't fix the
> problem with negotiation when recieving a fax.
>
> Dave.
>
> >
> >My best guess is that the fax hardware in USR modems is just not up to
> >the sensitive timing requirements of faxing.  The most common error I
> >get is 'unable to negogiate connection or train.'
> >
> >I'll put together a list of all the init strings, tweaks, and
> >modifications that have helped (but only a bit) me recently, and I would
> >be very grateful if anyone could suggest something that would help me
> >really solve this problem
> >
> >Tom
> >
>
> David Schick,  [e-mail]   Vancouver, B.C. Canada,