David Lang
On Sun, 8 Aug 1999, Riley Williams wrote:
> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 22:18:13 +0100 (GMT)
> From: Riley Williams <rhw@MemAlpha.CX>
> To: Mike A Harris <mharris@ican.net>
> Cc: Peter Desnoyers <pjd@fred001.dynip.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: First WinModem for Linux
>
> Hi Mike.
>
> >>>> That's short-sighted, Mike. A Linmodem makes a perfectly fine
> >>>> telco interface. It takes no more CPU than a buffered UART
> >>>> running at 57600.
>
> >>>> See http:/linmodems.org for reasonable uses of a linmodem.
>
> There are TWO types of [lw]inmodems, one worth considering, one not.
> Unfortunately, the latter is by far the commoner, and few people can
> tell the difference, so the general advice to avoid them completely
> still stands. The two types are:
>
> 1. [lw]inmodems with onboard DSP, where only the high level
> firmware is implemented on the host PC.
>
> 2. [lw]inmodems without onboard DSP, where everything beyond
> the telco isolation interface is implemented on the host
> PC.
>
> >>> What a crock. If a Winmodem/linmodem whatever software modem did
> >>> not use up a lot of CPU resources, then it would not suck so bad.
>
> >> Go back and read what he wrote until you understand why your
> >> reply doesn't refute what Russ said. If you still don't
> >> understand, check out the web site. (here's a hint - "modem" !=
> >> "telco interface")
>
> Here's another hint - type 2 [lw]inmodems are no more than telco
> interfaces under a different name, and that is little more than a
> marketing gimmick to allow the companies to sell their junk.
>
> > I don't care. As far as using a modem to connect to the
> > internet, or to connect to another computer is concerned, a
> > Winmodem uses and wastes CPU bandwidth and other valuable system
> > resources.
>
> Nobody with any sense expects to get 100% CPU usage on any system with
> a modem on it whilst the modem is in use, and that applies equally
> well to true hardware modems as to [lw]inmodems of any type.
>
> However, people with type 2 [lw]inmodems will usually be lucky to get
> more than 25% CPU usage on their systems because of the sheer load the
> [lw]inmodem driver puts on their system - and, daft as it may sound,
> the usable load they can put on their CPU's tends to go DOWN as the
> CPU speed goes up, simply because the delays the drivers have to
> introduce are fixed times, and the driver in general has to busy-wait
> for the relevant interval.
>
> In comparison, type 1 [lw]inmodems will normally allow at least 70%
> CPU usage for user applications, and hardware modems allow around 85%
> to 90% CPU usage - and both those figures tend to go UP as the CPU
> speed climbs.
>
> > The cost saved by using the winmodem, is wasted on the extra
> > money put out for the host CPU. The unreliability of the things
> > adds to the uselessness of them, as does their lack of
> > portability.
>
> Whilst that is true of type 2 [lw]inmodems, it does not really apply
> to type 1 [lw]inmodems
>
> > Nonetheless, manufacturers push them, and most people buy them
> > unknowingly, because they do not know any better. Some people
> > buy them because they are "winmodems" and that must mean that
> > they are "better" in Windows.
>
> All too true, unfortunately...
>
> > Most people that I know, that I've done business with that have
> > encountered problems with their modem in the last few years, it
> > was because it was a WINMODEM or equivalent, and they DID NOT
> > KNOW THAT THEY BOUGHT A PIECE OF CRAP HARDWARE - they trusted
> > their vendor, who ripped them off.
>
> Of those that cause problems, my experience says that over 90% will be
> type 2 [lw]inmodems at that. In fact, daft as it sounds, the only non
> type 2 [lw]inmodem I've come across that failed was a hardware modem
> that had been subject to a lightning strike on the phone line it was
> plugged into. I know several people with type 1 [lw]inmodems that have
> never caused any problems, and several others with hardware modems
> that have never caused any problems, but I only know one person with a
> type 2 [lw]inmodem that doesn't cause him any problems, and that's
> probably because he doesn't use it as he has an ethernet connection to
> the internet - the modem came with the PC, and didn't cost him
> anything...
>
> > Whats even funnier, is that even the people in the stores
> > selling the crap, don't even know half the time. "Is this a
> > winmodem", "no it is not", get home, put it in, Linux
> > no-comprende, read manual - windows only.... back to store, "I
> > said I DID NOT want a winmodem", "that isn't a winmodem", "Ok, I
> > said I did not want a modem that ONLY WORKS IN WINDOWS NO MATTER
> > WHAT IT'S CUTE LITTLE NAME IS", "oh, that modem should work..."
> > Open manual, show them "windows only" - shocked look ... 'oh...
> > um... ahh... try this modem instead..."
>
> That sounds like the staff at the local branch of PC World.
>
> > I live in an area where computer peripherals are not $5 for a
> > winmodem, and $300 for a real modem like some other people imply
> > they are. Here a crap software modem goes for about as low as
> > $40-50 or so, and a real modem, with real hardware, goes for
> > anywhere from $50-$200 or so. The $50 ones work just as good as
> > the $200 ones from my experience, but they are REAL modems, and
> > not software based.
>
> Locally, prices are as follows (all UK pounds):
>
> Hardware modem 30 to 350
> Type 1 20 to 50
> Type 2 15 to 70
>
> ISDN 25 to 700
>
> MIne is a USR Sportster 56k/VoiceFax hardware modem, and cost me all
> of 40 pounds, and it's never given me any hassle at all.
>
> > 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.
>
> > If someone buys a new system - $700-$5000 or more, and gets a
> > winmodem, I say they got ripped off by the vendor. The price
> > difference from $700 to $710 or $720 for a real modem on such a
> > low end system is not big enough to warrant the crap hardware in
> > a consumer product.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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...
>
> > By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with Linux, nor my
> > advocacy of it. I saw a friend get stuck with a 14.4k RPI modem
> > back in the good old DOS days, and not be able to replace it to
> > be able to use it for the purposes he wanted at the time because
> > the store wouldn't take it back after a few months. I then saw
> > many people have this happen, then with 28.8k modems, then 56k.
> > A lot of ISP's would not let people connect with software
> > modems, or they wouldn't be able to connect reliably. From a
> > helpdesk perspective, they are also horrible, as they cause a
> > LOT of troubleshooting, and extra work from that perspective as
> > well.
>
> I was working on a helpdesk when the things first came out, back in
> the days when 9600 was top of the range, and I've never rated them as
> worth anything.
>
> > Any money the damned things save a person initially, they will
> > waste in tech support, and/or in buying a new modem later on
> > that is a real one. Even worse, I've seen many people go buy a
> > new modem after being told their winmodem was at fault, and they
> > specified that they did not want a winmodem the second time, but
> > got one anyways, and didn't know until they had more problems
> > again a few weeks later, or days later.
>
> > So, I back up my stance against Winmodems. Nobody is going to
> > change my viewpoint on this matter in any way shape or form, so
> > you might as well not even try.
>
> > If you say, "but they are good for holding a window up", so is a
> > rock, and they are cheaper.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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/
>
-
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/