-=> Quoting David Bowerman to Richard Town <=-
 DB> Richard, Lucent and 3Com are committed to doing interop testing.  For
 DB> that matter so are ZyXEL.  The only major name missing from the list is
 DB> Rockwell.
Groan.  Rockwell doesn't make modems.  So it'd be a bit silly for them to
do interop for modems they don't make, huh?
 DB> Lucent and 3Com are both setting up their own servers to
 DB> allow any manufacturer to call in to test their client implementations.
 DB> 3Com and Lucent will also be calling other manufacturer's servers with
 DB> their clients.
Bully for them.  Obviously they're expecting a load of incompatibilities
with their marques then
 RT> By deliberately only supporting one camp, and choosing to attack
 RT> any other supporters you are as guilty as the "suits" who care damn
 RT> all about the product, but only the bottom line.
 DB> Richard, you spend your time dumping on USR and expect us to mistake
 DB> you for an "impartial" observer?
Never mind all that balls;  where's your response to lack of USR V34 interop
(since x2)?
 DB> interoperability though Craig Ford, for one, has posted the relevant
 DB> data on several occasions.  Where are your messages dumping on Rockwell
 DB> for screwing up their handshaking?  Oh, yeah, that's USR's fault.
I've been effective (as others have) for any Zoom (being the manufacturer)
screw up.  Leaving Quick Disconnect and Auto-Lapm/MNP10 conversion on in
factory default wasn't exactly firmware of the week.  Mistaking USR's
so-called "V8bis" for a fax calling tone wasn't Zoom's fault, neither was
the 3429 symbol rate recognition fiasco.
 
 DB> I support interop.  I will blame USR if they screw up.
I've not seen this.  But perhaps they're perfect?
 DB> I will blame
 DB> Lucent if they screwup.
Not seen this
 DB> I will blame Rockwell if they screw up.
But I've seen lots of this :)
 DB> Please note a couple of facts:
 DB> 1.  Lucent is committed to V.90 interop testing
 DB> 2.  3Com is committed to V.90 interop testing
 DB> 3.  ZyXEL is committed to V.90 interop testing
 DB> 4.  Rockwell has stated they will not participate in interop testing
 DB> with      other manufacturers.
See foregoing
 DB> Now which of the above companies is going to produce a chipset that
 DB> will have problems due to a lack of testing?
Havn't seen statements from TI, NEC, Shyogun, UMC, PCTel, umm....
Doesn't mean that they're _going_ to have interop problems tho
 DB> Which company has stated
 DB> that USR V.90 modems will not be able to connect with their V.90
 DB> servers at speeds over v.34?
Pass.  Mind you, given Skokie's past record that wouldn't surprise me
 DB> Which company flogged K56Plus modem
 DB> chipsets as K56Flex chipsets?
It's who flogged the modems.  It turned out to be Diamond/Supra,
Hayes, and Motorola, plus a load of the el-cheepos that got caught by
this.  Their greed to be first in the market place caught them out.
Another brilliant decision by the "suits"
 DB> Which company failed to do testing when
 DB> they implemented a proprietary modification of the v.42 handshake?
It was a rush to get 'em out the door for the Christmas distribution season.
And free ROM updates were issued to anyone that wanted.  Free p&p too.
Which meant Zoom was the only budget modem maker to do this.  All other
hardware-ROM modem makers waited for V34Plus and incorporated those changes
in their hardware chargeable upgrade.
But still you've said nothing about USR's current lamentable V34 interop
Reminds me of a certain Spurtster cretin who used to sign himself
"Modemhaus"  
rgdZ :)
Richard
--- FMail/386 1.02
---------------