Path:
eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.o
rg!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" 
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Subject: Re: Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 15:46:21 +0000
Organization: 255 software
Lines: 31
Message-ID: 
References: 
  
  
 
  
  
  
 
 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=us-ascii;format=flowed
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
posting-host="50533736114ad7eb9758e4f30c119e08";
 logging-data="26348"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18tVkSniRUo8Y9y9iUGSu14"
User-Agent: Turnpike/6.07-M ()
Cancel-Lock: sha1:MRhE8JGv1Da90hTHV7lWIVOMiVM=
Xref: feeder.eternal-september.org microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:134527

In message , Ant 
 writes:
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)"  wrote:
>> In message , Paul 
>> writes:
>> []
>> >But you know why that is, right ?
>> >
>> >Your download max was 33.6, not 56K.
>> >
>> >A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the
>> >other end indicates it doesn't support 56K.
>
>> It was only ever 56k for download, basically because the mainframe
>> computer via the telephone system effectively had direct control of the
>> D-A converter in the exchange and could thus generate the waveform,
>> whereas in the upload direction, your computer (MoDem) did not know the
>> sampling instant of the A-D in the exchange, so had to go slow enough
>> (oversimplifying) that waveform detection worked.
>
>Didn't FCC only allow up to 53K speed?
>
They may have where the FCC reigns (the reason Paul gives is a plausible 
one). I don't _think_ there was any such limit here (UK) - certainly, 
this is the first time I can _remember_ seeing the figure of 53.
[]
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"If just one child is saved, then we'll have created a police state for the
benefit of just one child."
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.1