On Thu 16 Jan at 23:18 Hamish Moffatt (3:632/552{at}fidonet) wrote to Russell Brooks:

 > Don't you think that it would have been unecconomic to 
 > research and develop class 2.0 to the stage of 
 > ratification IF there was NOT a significant advantage on 
 > the day.

 HM> Not at all. I can see the ITU-T believing they had to issue 
 HM> a standard, and that a manufacturer-created defacto standard 
 HM> was not acceptable. Hence class 2.0's similitaries but 
 HM> incompatibilities. (Four vs three character commands, for 
 HM> example).

The EIA Technical Review subcommittee 29.2 (?) had some hold-ups in getting
Class 2.0 specifications out (EIA 592). However, ITU-T Study Group 8 made
Recommendations T.31 and T.32 fully aligned (ie no conflicting
specifications) with EIA 578 and EIA 592 respectively. Ask the editor of
T.31 and T.32 if you like: joe.decuir{at}microsoft.com.

 > Might be that todays improved CPU speed and multitasking 
 > platforms have just taken the urgent need of having the 
 > fax hardware do most of the work instead of the software 
 > away. This would Have to Be THE ONLY REASON that Class 2.0 
 > was not snapped up.

 HM> But class 2 does this; doesn't 2.0? Class 1 is more software driven.

I hope that a few more fax modem software vendors support Class 2.0 now
that it is a ratified ITU-T Recommendation and that USR fixed the bugs in
their Class 2.0 support.

--- msgedsq 2.1