Rod, at 20:29 on May 12 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> Anyway Paul, as you profess to be so good at locating
BG> and curing bugs, perhaps you'd care to explain why
BG> I've only ever seen 28800/NONE connects with TML ?

RS> Rather obvious really. The code in USR modems which exhibit that in
RS> some circumstances only does that in some circumstances.

I've been having this problem on and off (depending upon which ROM code was
being used) for several months now, as you know, yet I'd never heard of it
happening to anybody else.  However, in the last 2 days, I've seen a
reference to one fellow in the US having it happen, and now the same thing
(albeit only once) with Peter McGrath, locally (between Couriers too).

When it was just me, it was rather hard to categorically point the finger
at USR, but there is now some evidence that it does appear that the code
does have a defect which allows this to happen, especially when disabling
the 3429 symbol rate apparently fixes it.  It also now looks like that
defect which was fixed in the Sportster's EPROM (accidentally, by the look
of it) also exists in at least the two latest revisions of the Courier
code.

RS> Clearly, if PARTICULAR rom in a Sportster fixes that, it must be fixable by 
RS> USR.

Agreed, but as I said, they may have fluked it unintentionally.

RS> Think for a moment about when you said the same sort of thing based on
RS> the heaps of modems you tested when working for CHH. What you said was
RS> right, in THAT situation, you didnt see any problem. 

Quite so.  Any problems have been from here, and only here.

RS> Boy did you get ONE HELL of a surprise when you used the Sportster at home 
RS> with the old rom calling it tho. Which went away completely when you 
RS> installed the best rom.

Which also happened to be the one which increased the speed to 33600, and
as the 28800 code also used the 3429 symbol rate, it can't have been that
alone causing the problem.  Looks more like defective code now, but until
I'd heard about others with the same problem, I was loathe to blame USR
based on just one sample (mine).  I'm also not convinced that the M34F is
completely blameless either, given that it happened FAR less frequently
with Paul's Viper. 

RS> I'm not being snide Bill, you really do want to think this
RS> thru. Coz if you can grasp it, it really does signify a
RS> HELL of a lot about testing in complex fault situations.

I understand testing quite well, Rod.  18 years of fixing sodding VCRs has
seen to that, and after a while you tend to see the same faults cropping up
with great regularity.  However, until I'd heard of others with the same
non-EC problem, I was simply not prepared to blame USR's code based on just
one sample, and from just the one location (i.e. line conditions).

BG> I've called heaps of V.34 modems all over Australia (and a
BG> few in the US), and have NEVER seen a non-EC connect anywhere
BG> but on your board. Same with DD as well, now that I think about it.

RS> Yes, but you said the same thing about tests done from CHH too.
RS> And got one HELL of a surprise when you did it from home instead.
RS> And an even bigger one when a new Sportster rom fixed the problem too.

Sure, I'm happy to acknowledge that the latest EPROM fixed the problem, but
there's still no real way of determining whether or not the M34F also has
some quirk in it's code which triggers the fault in certain USR code
revisions.  Otherwise, I'd expect the failure rate with the Viper to be
much the same, yet it was nowhere near that with the NetComm.

RS> Its more useful to recognise that USR clearly can
RS> eliminate the problem, coz the Sportster rom did.
RS> Presumably thats not in the Courier SDL for some reason.

Makes me think the Sportster fix was more accidental than intentional.

BG> but it does seem odd that it only happens with YOUR M34F and
BG> (very infrequently) YOUR Viper, and so far, with nobody else's.

RS> Well, you dont call anyone elses non USR modems
RS> at anything like the rate you call Pauls.

Oh sure, no argument with that, although I do tend to do quite a bit of
crash-mailing long distance, yet have NEVER had a problem at any speed or
protocol (V.FC included, believe it or not).

BG> Poltergeists, perhaps ?

RS> A deficiency in the USR which they obviously know
RS> how to fix if the latest Sportster rom did so.

Unless it was accidental.  Otherwise, that fix would surely have been
carried over to the later Courier SDLs.

RS> PARTICULARLY when its primarily USR Couriers
RS> seeing that /NONE when calling Paul now.

Just one (mine) regularly, and David's once or twice.  That's still not as
large a sample as I'd like, but given the other recent reports about this
in the USR_Modems echo, it may also now be adequate. 

Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 3.20