NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/comp/dcom/modems/16933

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.9 KB | 135 lines

Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Path: sparky!uunet!portal!dgm
From: [e-mail] (David G Metzger)
Subject: Re: Intel Modems
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: jobe
Organization: Portal Communications Company -- 408/973-9111 (voice) 408/973-8091 (data)
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:32:11 GMT
Lines: 122

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Navas)  writes:
>[e-mail] (Jeff Meyer) writes:
>
> JN> A serious limitation of the 400 is that it's a "DOS-only" modem
> JN> -- since Intel did not use Flash RAM or EEPROM for the firmware,
> JN> it has to be downloaded each time you power up, and Intel only
> JN> provides a DOS device driver to do the job.  :-(
>
> > From this and other comments, your complaints about Intel's modems
> > seem to be based on poor OS/2 or Unix support for the Intel
> > faxmodem -- is this correct?  Because having the firmware loaded
> > during boot-up for a DOS/Windows machine (like mine) isn't a
> > drawback (it's done with all the rest of the crap in the CONFIG.SYS
> > file.)
>
>No, that is not my only complaint (although it is a major one).  Other
>problems in the 400 include:
>

    I would add the following to John Navas' comments, but please note
that my experiences were from a couple of months back, and for all I
know, Intel has already addressed the problems I had.

    I worked with an Intel SatisFAXtion 400 (that's the internal) for about
two weeks before returning it.  I too was unhappy with the requirement of a
special device driver, and Intel had no plans to provide support for
anything other than DOS.   I have no idea what operating system
I will be using five years down the road and certainly don't want
to buy a bunch of $400 modems that are useless without special software
drivers.  IMHO it was a real mistake not to put nonvolatile RAM in
the 400.  I eventually ended up using the USR Sportster which has
performed so flawlessly, I forget it's there.

>* Lack of full support for DESQview.
>
>* Problems connecting with certain modems, particularly older 2400bps
>and down models.

   I had consistent problems connecting to Intel's own BBS at 14,400bps;
It would connect at 9600 instead:-(.

>* Lower throughput than USR and other top data modems, particularly on
>poorer lines.

   On similar, compressed files I could only get transfer rates of around
1550 cps, compared to a range of about 1630-1700 on the Sportster.  I never
did figure out why the 400 was that slow. (The serial port speed was
specified as 115200bps, as this is supposed to tell the 400 to just
hand bytes to the processor as fast as it can read them; lower baud rates
on the serial port simply instruct the software-UART to restrict the
availability of characters to the processor at rates no faster than
that specified.  The one strong point of the 400 is that with hardware
handshaking, you CAN'T lose characters  because the 400's processor
knows when you haven't retrieved a character from the faked serial port,
and won't clobber it with another until the first is read.)

>
>* Common speaker failures.
>
>* Problems receiving files in fax mode if a disk cache is running.
>
>* Problems with certain phone installations and handsets.

    Yes, if your telephone or answering machine didn't draw enough
current you couldn't manually answer your line.  Under one mode of
operation, the 400 will eavesdrop on the line at the start of a call
to detect fax tones; if it hears none it assumes it is a voice call
and disconnects leaving the humans to converse.  Unfortunately, it
would sometimes just keep going on and off hook, making clicking sounds.
Intel's support line suggestion?  Get a different phone/answering machine;
I don't think so.

>
>* Random crashes in FAXability software.

   My gripe was that from the box you think you're getting software for
both DOS and Windows, but when you get into it you discover that the
Windows software is send only. But of course if your willing to part with
extra dollar$, they will be happy to fix you up with receive too.

>
>* Inability of FAXability to handle certain Windows printing jobs.
>
>* Poor scanner software support.

   The 400 has a scanner interface board built-in.  This would have been
fine if it saved you some money when you bought your scanner - but it didn't.
And if you weren't going to use a scanner, you still had the interface
sitting there, wasting power; if you installed more than one modem
in your machine, each one had another built-in scanner interface.  How many
scanners are you likely to connect to one machine?  I've forgotten the
specs, but I remember being struck by the amount of power each board used.

>
>* A customer service policy that expects users to pay for fixes to
>certain design defects.
>
>Best regards,
>John
>
>p.s.  I also objected to Intel releasing the 400 without the
>advertised 14400 fax support.
>
    This was the final straw for me.  The box clearly indicated that the
modem would perform fax at 14400bps.  Again, it wasn't until you started
rooting through all of the little advertisements/manuals/offers that they
stuff into the box that you discover your modem has had the 14400 fax
capability turned off.  A little pamphlet tells you that your modem cannot
receive the higher speed faxes reliably, that they are trying to find a
solution, and to check with Intel support for further information.

    A call to Intel support revealed that (1) no, there was still no fix;
(2) they had no idea when or even *if* there would be a fix; (3) *If* a
fix was offered it might involve a hardware modification and cost more
dollar$.  The support person went on to tell me that I didn't really need
14400 fax anyway, because 9600 was plenty fast.  I returned the modem
the next day.

--

                                    Dave Metzger
                                    [e-mail]