NetNews Offline 2/NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso/news/comp/dcom/modems-part1/9072

Internet Message Format | 1996-08-05 | 5.8 KB

Path: turnpike.com!DavidE
From: Dave English <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems,demon.tech.modems
Subject: Re: Mr. Modem V1428VQH Voice/Fax/Modem - how to use it?
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 1996 13:09:45 +0000
Organization: Turnpike Ltd
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pillar.turnpike.com
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pillar.turnpike.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Newsreader: Turnpike Version 1.12 <U2yaxlNz9m7tpk5wwwfqeW1so7>

In article <[e-mail]>, Brian {Hamilton
Kelly} <[e-mail]> writes
>I've just read through all 2,500+ articles on my server in comp.tech.modems,
>and have found no mention of this product, nor yet of a FAQ, so please
>forgive me for jumping in and asking what *may* be a FAQ.
>
>I've just purchased a V.34 Internal fax/modem with voice capability.
>According to the advertiser, this product has BABT approval (anything for
>connection to the telephone line in the UK must have been approved by the
>British Approvals Board for Telecommunications, which, contrary to most
>people's impression, is *not* run by BT [British Telecommunications]).  This
>I found strange, because to the best of my knowledge, NO voice modem has
>been given BABT approval.
>
>Be that as it may, it duly arrived, and is in a "Mr. Modem" box marked
>MR-144/144HVbis, which has got the coveted "green" sticker from BABT on it.
>According to the box, the modem is made by Microcomputer Research Inc., but
>there's no manufacturer's address on the box, other than "Made in Taiwan".
>The blurb on the back of the box was at first worrying, because it made no
>mention of the V.34 (28,800) standard for which I had ordered it.  But also
>on the box is a sticker identifying it as "VOICE 28800bps FAX MODEM V1428VQH"
>and inside the box, the instruction book does indeed confirm that it works
>at V.34 (the card *doesn't* have the BABT approved sticker, which is
>significant, I suspect :-)
>
>Anyway, this is all by the by: my problem is that I cannot get the card to
>work.  It has jumpers to configure its port address to any of the standard
>COM1:..COM4:, and to select any of IRQ3, IRQ4, IRQ5, or IRQ7.  But no matter
>how I configure it, the BIOS on none of the three machines in which I've
>tried it can see the card (it's taken me two days to work this out, because
>I had to discover how to disable my existing coms ports).
>
>Speaking to the distributors, they say that it doesn't need to be seen by
>the BIOS, because one runs a "Banzai" program (supplied with the card) to
>configure the modem to work under Windows.  This disk does indeed refer to
>AT&T modems, and the card itself has two large AT&T branded chips on it.
>
>Whether or not this Banzai program will work is purely academic for me,
>however, because I want to run the modem under pure DOS or under OS/2 (I
>wouldn't let that Windows crap anywhere near my computer).  Before I return
>the modem to get my money back, can anyone confirm that the board will only
>work under Windows, or alternatively tell me how to use it under DOS and/or
>OS/2?
>
>(I find it disturbing that most of the ISA bus's address lines go to a 40+
>pin SMD labelled U6 on the board, which doesn't seem to be fitted.  Is there
>some way around the functionality of this chip, whatever it might have been
>meant to be, that allows the board to work under Windows, but for which some
>ASIC was required to work under common-or-garden DOS?)

It rather sounds as though the modem you have does indeed only work with
the Windows device driver.

The modem is an AT&T "controller-less" modem, it has DSP hardware to do
the data-pump functions but uses a device driver running on the PC host
to perform the controller functions of the modem.  The device driver
supplied is for Windows 3.1 .  I do not know whether a device driver
exists for OS/2, but I rather doubt it.  I very much doubt if it is
possible to use the modem under MS-DOS.

The argument for controllerless modems is that they can reduce the cost
and increase the possible functionality of a modem by using the host CPU
for control functions.  The disadvantage is the necessity for software
compatibility with an operating system.

Your modem is probably made by Askey Computer Corporation in Taiwan,
they call their modems Dynalinks.  Other modems that use the same or
similar hardware have been sold in the US, I know of a Boca and a
Cardinal.  I belevive there may be more than one variant of device
driver software.  This is the first modem I have seen in the UK.

There are two other families of modems that require special device
drivers.  One is bazed on the IBM Mwave chipset, the other on the
Rockwell RPI chipset.  The MWaves are high class products, they have a
high performance DSP which can often perform sound-card emulation as
well as modem functions simultaneously, drivers are available for DOS,
for OS/2 and for Windows.  Apart from IBM products, the Best Data ACE
5000 and Miro Connect 34 use MWave chips.  The RPI chipsets are a low
cost solution, they have controller hardware to implement basic
functions, but need a device driver in order to do higher functions such
as V.42 error correction or V.42bis data compression.  Many
manufacturers have had RPI modems at the bottom of their 14.4 range at
one time or another.

Other modems have been sold in MR-144 boxes, for example with a sticker
reading "V.34 28800bps fax modem 1428VQH".  This has already caused some
confusion.  I do hope that the BABT approved sticker applies to the
modem, and not just to the box :-^)

In summary, I believe your modem is a controller-less Windows modem, if
you wish to use the modem without using Windows then I think you will
need some other modem.
--
Dave English, T U R N P I K E  Ltd
Dorking Business Park, DORKING, Surrey, UK. RH4 1HN
My other computer's a brain