lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Aug]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [OFFTOPIC] Re: First WinModem for Linux
    Hi Mike.

    I've cut your initial comments as we are basically saying the same
    thing in different words, and I'm just replying to the later comments.

    >>> As such, ANYONE saving $10-$20 buy buying a winmodem, is getting
    >>> taken. If someone purposefully chooses one, because it is
    >>> cheaper after being warned what they are buying, then that is
    >>> fine, their decision.

    >> I act as a consultancy locally, and my advice regarding modems is
    >> that in general, what one saves buying a cheaper product, one will
    >> soon spend on increased telephone bills.

    > Well, I don't see how that works unless you pay by the minute for
    > local telephone access, but I generally agree.

    Here in the UK, one pays by the SECOND for telephone calls, and many
    modem users look enviously towards the USA and their "Free local
    calls"...

    > What you save on your winmodem, you will pay for replacing it
    > down the road, maybe several times. Or, you will pay a
    > consultant to come and install the drivers for it, or pay the
    > computer store to get it working.

    > People often pay me my $30/hr to get their systems running.
    > One of the problems is ALWAYS winmodems. Sometimes it takes me
    > 10 minutes, sometimes 2 hours. At $30/hr, they're cheaper off
    > getting a REAL modem - and I tell them that. They often go and
    > buy it themselves, and come back with ANOTHER winmodem. ;o)

    I have a very simple policy when it comes to modems: If the customer's
    system contains a WinModem, the customer has the option of either
    paying for a minimum of 8 hours' work to get it working, or they can
    let me replace it with a hardware modem that I supply and pay for 1
    hour's work instead, plus the 50 pounds I charge for the modem. The
    customer usually makes the right choice...

    >> For the manufacturers, the cost price difference between
    >> installing a [lw]inmodem or a hardware modem is usually less
    >> than five pounds, and well within their profit margins, so if
    >> one specifies that the system be supplied with a hardware modem
    >> rather than a [lw]inmodem, they will normally comply without
    >> any hassle.

    > Right, but only if it is stressed enough, and the people doing
    > the installation are competant.

    If I'm advising a customer, I normally tell them to include on the
    purchase order the following statement:

    Q> It is required that these computer systems be supplied with a
    Q> modem that is capable of being used reliably when the Windows
    Q> operating system is not in use. Failure to do so will be deemed
    Q> reason to refuse to make payment for the system, and retrieval
    Q> of the rejected system will be entirely at the suppliers expense.

    It is surprising how much more competent the people doing the
    installation become when one does that...

    >>> There might be a demand for them, if you wish to look at it like
    >>> that, but I say the demand exists only because of the public's
    >>> general lack of understanding of technology. The things are a
    >>> burden to technology, and are a horrible thorn in the side of
    >>> technology.

    >> IMHO, they are holding back technology, and the sooner they get
    >> booted out of the market, the better. There's no way they can
    >> support ADSL with them, and I firmly believe that ADSL
    >> technology would be much more freely available were it not for
    >> the proliferation of [lw]inmodems, and both the customers and
    >> the telco's would be much better off as a result...

    > I completely agree as well. Winmodems are causing the hold back
    > of high-speed internet to the masses.

    Aren't they just !!!

    >>> Winmodems are a horrible disgrace to the technology age, as
    >>> are all other software based crap hardware. Use any argument
    >>> you like to counter, but my stance is very firm, and very
    >>> well thought out, and covers many cases, based on my personal
    >>> experience, and that of hundreds of RIPPED OFF customers.

    >> You'll get no arguments from me other than what I've expressed
    >> in this missive, and my feeling is that we're pretty much in
    >> total agreement on the subject.

    > I think that most people "in the know" so to speak, are also in
    > agreement as well. I believe I misunderstood something that you
    > said at the top though, so feel free to set me straight on it, or
    > ignore it.

    Basically, my comments at the top were pointing out that there are
    two different types of [lw]inmodems, and only those without DSP's are
    really crap. True, software that directly addresses a hardware UART
    will fail on both types, but the vast majority of modern software uses
    the operating system's driver to access them, and in that mode, the
    [lw]inmodems with DSP's are no less stable than hardware modems. The
    same can not be said of the [lw]inmodems without DSP's though.

    Personally, I would never use any type of [lw]inmodem, nor would I
    recommend one, as per my comment above, but I believe in being fair to
    BOTH sides in a debate like this.

    > We should move this to private email though, before the flames
    > begin...

    I can happily report that my local /dev/null file is flame resistant!

    Best wishes from Riley.

    +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
    | development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
    | in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
    | else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
    +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
    * ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux
    * http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html


    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:4.068 / U:0.588 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site