Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 8 Aug 1999 23:27:16 +0100 (GMT) | From | Riley Williams <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |