JP> However, Dynalinks do have a problem recognising
JP> the dial tone on the Australian PSTN.

JN> Which is a non-issue to everyone but BBS sysops,

JP> How do you figure that the modem's inability to recognise the dial
JP> tone is a sysop-only problem? It affects anyone who uses the modem

RS> Nope, its almost a complete non issue for normal users.
RS> About its only marginal value is to give an immediate
RS> notification if you havent plugged it into the phone line.

JP> I've used a Dynalink as both a user AND a sysop.

Does nothing useful to substantiate your claim tho, there are plenty of
people who can say the same thing about having been a user and a sysop.

JP> Yes, countless times I checked my logs in the morning to discover
JP> that my mail event didn't happen because the modem didn't dial.

We were actually discussing the usability of a modem which cant reliably
detect dial tone, so you use X3 to suppress dial tone detection. If you do
that, the detection of dial tone really doesnt matter a damn to a normal user.

JP> That was (of course) until I was aware of the X3 kludge.

Thats just the inevitable initial config hassles you can get with
ANY modem, not evidence that dial tone detection is absolutely
crucial. As he said, its really is a non issue for normal users.

JN> who should be spending more on a modem anyway.

JP> Not necessarily. Sysops -- ANYONE -- should spend money on the best
JP> modem for the job, ie, one which performs reliably in their environment.

RS> You havent actually established that this particular dial tone
RS> detection has anything to do with reliability for normal users.

JP> Was I supposed to?

That was what was being discussed. Reliability in
general has nothing to do with dial tone detection.

JP> I'm quite sure that normal [sic] users would have just as
JP> much of an expectation of their modem(s) as sysops would.

Thats completely silly. Sysops want a modem which, after careful config,
will never just have a brain fart which makes that line unusable in the
sense that the mailers periodic tickling the modem wont reset it properly
to allow a fresh incoming call. Normal users mostly dont even do unattended
mail runs, let alone have their modems responding to incoming calls.

JP> Take the user who uses a Dynalink for
JP> placing regular -- unattended -- fax calls.

Well, now you are off on a different issue entirely.
Most users dont set the modems up like that either, for
other reasons to do with the number of phone lines etc.

JP> I'd imagine that reliability (in the form
JP> of dial tone detection) would be important.

Welp, it isnt, dial tone detection in that particular
situation really doesnt matter a damn either.

It can be handy with a BBS which makes outgoing calls, because its
possible with dial tone detection to detect the situation where the
BBS attempts an outgoing call JUST as a new incoming arrives, so it
picks the line up to make an outgoing call and gets no dialtone,
gets the new caller instead. Its then possible in some circumstances
to abort the outgoing call and just log the new incoming call as usual.

Thats not a situation for normal users even expecting incoming
faxes tho. And in the worst case where a call like that fails,
its auto retried anyway, so no big deal at all if you dont
have dial tone detection. Handy, but no more than that.

JP> If there is a higher price to pay, so be it.

RS> Bit pointless spending much to get dial tone detection for normal users.

JP> Would you recommend a Dynalink to me (as a user, not a sysop)
JP> when there a modems such as the USR Courier around?

Yes, I would recommend a modem which costs half as much as a
USR Courier if it works well and just doesnt detect dial tone.

JP> Dial tone detection wouldn't be the only factor I would take into
JP> consideration when purchasing X-brand modems over Dynalink brand modems.

Sure, but it happened to be the only one actually being discussed there.
The question of Dynalinks in general is a different issue entirely.
@EOT:

---