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/