Re: Fw: X Windos System will not start
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent West" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "debian-user" <email@example.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 23:09
Subject: Re: Fw: X Windos System will not start
> Hoyt Bailey wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Kent West" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: "debian-user" <email@example.com>
> >Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 21:43
> >Subject: Re: Fw: X Windos System will not start
> >>Hoyt Bailey wrote:
> >>>Ok Sold. I'm game but I need to get stable "stable" enough to get PPP
> >>Chances are you have a so-called "soft-modem" (aka "winmodem"). You
> >>_might_ get it working, but it'd be a whole lote easier to just put a
> >>real modem on one of your serial ports.
> >The modem is a:
> >PCI Slot 3(PCI Bus 0, Device 11, Function 0)
> >Mounted on Com3
> >I believe it is a 56K V92, that is all I know about it. Exceot that it
> >with Windows XP and has caused no problems.
> >1. Is it a winmodem?
> Yes, it is a "win-modem". From http://www.intel.com/design/modems/:
> "The Intel® 536EP is a controller-less modem chipset . . . ."
> >2. What is a real modem?
> A real modem has all the hardware necessary to MOdulate/DEModulate a
> signal. Controller-less chips (aka "host-based", "soft modem",
> "win-modem") have only enough hardware to interface the computer to the
> phone line; all the modulating/demodulating is down via software: This
> has two advantages:
> 1) It's cheaper to manufacture
> 2) It's fairly easy to "upgrade"
> However, I believe the disadvantages of a soft-modem outweigh the
> 1) It sucks up resources (RAM, CPU cycles) that would otherwise be
> off-loaded to the modem hardware
> 2) It requires driver software, which can only be written if by
> someone who understands the internals of the chip. In essence this means
> that only the manufacturer of the modem can write the software, and
> typically the manufacturer only writes software for one OS only, that
> being Windows. A few dedicated hackers will often reverse-engineer a
> driver, but that takes time, effort, and may produce a driver with
> severe shortcomings. In other words, if you have a win-modem, don't
> expect to use it in Linux, and especially don't expect to use all the
> features it's supposed to have.
> 3) It's much more difficult to diagnose communication problems. With
> a real modem, you can use a simple command from the command line to give
> you some valuable information about the state of the hardware; with a
> soft modem, you can never be sure if the problem is the OS or the driver
> or the modem or the phone line or the protocol or the username/password
> or . . . .
> 4) There's less "insulation" between your computer and the lightning
> strike in the next county over. Of course this can be greatly mitigated
> with a surge suppressor on your phone line.
> 5) You can't just yank the modem out of one machine and connect it
> to another if need be. Instead you've got to connect it to a computer
> with the right OS, and then install the driver.
> >3. Why might it be difficult to get it working?
> See above: Disadvantage #2. I didn't do much research, but accordng to
> this posting on the Linux Kernel Mailing list at
> http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2003-23/1091.html, it looks
> like support for this modem has not yet been reverse-engineered yet. If
> you have any influence at Intel, go complain to them; it's they who are
> making your life difficult on this issue, not Debian.
Thanks for the information I have heard about winmodems but never knew what
the term ment.