Hamish, at 23:18 on Jan 16 1997, you wrote to Russell Brooks ...

. . .[chomp]. . .

>> 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).

>> 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 
HM> driven.

Other than the 3/4 letter commands, what differences are there between 2 and 2.0?

David
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10