[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: dial-in server - modems

hi ya nathan


the "good modems" i was referrng to are those that have
	- a uart chip ( 16550 or equivalent uart ) 
	- if you do NOT see a uart, stay away from it cause it probably
	is a "software modem" and brings lots of fun with it

for those that like to get into the gory winmodem details,
rick has some rants on winmodems and more detailed references

c ya

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, D. Nathan Cookson wrote:

> A few words about modems:
> First, the Winmodem term is actually copyrighted and trademarked by
> 3com/USRobotics.   They at least are honest about labeling their modems as
> such.    Other makers label them as, Host-based modems, Controllerless
> Modems, the most notorious for issues, the chips for them are manufactured
> by PCTel, and sold under the name HSP (host signal processor) modems.  These
> should be avoided at all costs.   Even zoom manufacturers some.
> 1 - External modems are almost always hardware modems, the few exceptions
> use the USB interface.
> 2 - If a Modem states it supports DOS it is probably a hardware modem.
> However, some "winmodem" makers have caught on to this little trick and will
> says, "Supports DOS within the Windows environment", ie it is a winmodem.
> 3 - Most internal modem makers make both "soft"/winmodems and hardware
> modems.  Generally speaking anything under $45 is a soft modem, anything
> 45-60 could be a softmodem, and anything over $60 is a hardware modem.
> 4 - There are 4 "parts" to a modem, I forget exactly what they are, and a
> hardware modem has a chip or chips that peform all 4 functions, software
> modems have at least 1 function fulfilled by software.  The "partial" soft
> modems are often the cause of the biggest headaches for people setting them
> up under Linux.  They will often do things like dial, but not handshake.
> 5 - There are some "drivers" available for softmodems under Linux, but I
> have not got them to work as reliable as a hardware modem in any instance I
> have tried.

Reply to: