Paul, at 13:34 on Mar 31 1996, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> Does your contents insurance policy cover lightning damage?  Mine does now, 

PE> I don't believe in insurance.  I prefer to play a long-term gamble
PE> with the odds in my favour.

Insurance is where they pay you every time your house burns down, and you
pay them every time it doesn't.  I used to be uninsured once, until my
brother's best friend's house was destroyed by fire.  He was uninsured too,
and to fully replace his home cost him $120k, almost destroying him and his
family in the process.  Fuck that for a joke, never again.

PE> Bill, I've never been able to get any modem manufacturer to fix
PE> my bugs.  I couldn't get Borland to fix their compiler, etc etc.
PE> Not much use having the feature if the real problem is that they're
PE> not going to fix it.

BG> Why do you think USR have released half a dozen SDLs over the past 18 
BG> months or so then?  Some were feature upgrades, but most were bug-fixes, 

PE> Bill, I sent a massive list of bugs to USR technical support,

I'll comment upon those individually a bit later, because some of them
aren't bugs at all, while others are simply quirks caused by your
unfamiliarity with the product, and how it's configured.

PE> and not even half-an-answer on one of them.  I do not consider them to
PE> be any different to Borland.

OK, so USR may not have immediately dropped everything and addressed your
purported problems straight away, but the very fact that there have been so
many SDLs over the past 18 months tells me that they are swatting bugs as
they find them.  It was obvious anyway from the way my new EPROM performed,
that they'd improved certain aspects of the controller code.

BG> and even more importantly, ALL of them were free.  You may not care for the 
BG> Courier's quirky behaviour with auto-bauding (or Rod's Supra :)), but I 
BG> find it hard to believe that you think that USR don't fix their bugs.  
BG> Clearly, they do.

PE> Clearly they don't, unless you can crosspost a reply from USR that
PE> was something other than a heap of shit.

With each and every SDL, there is a README.TXT file which actually lists
both bug-fixes and feature upgrades, so I think you're going out of your
way to be obtuse here.  Try being a bit more objective, Paul.

BG> No, you're completely ignoring interconnectivity (and yeah, I know how you 
BG> feel about people who use non-ITU protocols, but your M34F also does V.FC, 
BG> in case you hadn't noticed :)), plus the future upgradeability of the 

PE> Although I find the V.FC polluting my modem mildly disconcerting, I
PE> probably wouldn't actually switch it off. 

And why not?  How about putting your money where your mouth is.  :)

PE> I would switch it off the moment I thought it might be interfering with my 
PE> standard V. things.

Not much chance of that.

PE> In other words, they're of ZERO value to me, and you have to come up
PE> with *$200* worth of benefits to *ME*.  Otherwise, the Netcomm is the
PE> better buy, to *ME*. 

Which is what I've been saying as well, you may have noticed.

BG> It basically means that there's no longer any need to replace your modem 
BG> every time a new feature is introduced, and over a year or two, that more 
BG> than makes up for the extra $200 up front anyway.

PE> Over the last year and a half that USR have been flogging their V.34
PE> modem, how many features have been added that would be worth $200 to *ME*? 

I can't answer that; only you can.  However, take the hypothetical
situation where Joe Blow buys a Courier while it's still a V.FC-only modem
(before V.34 has been ITU-ratified).  He pays his up-front once-only cost
for the modem, then everything else from that moment onwards is completely
free of charge, like the V.34 protocol (then V.34+), Distinctive Ring, CID,
Carrier Loss Redial, Class 2.0 adaptive answer fax, upgrade to 14400 bps
fax, 64 state trellis coding, LAPM Selective REJect, Security Dialback of
CID number, the best diagnostics display of any modem on the market (and
even that is being improved continually), to mention just a few things. 
Surely you wouldn't try to suggest that Joe didn't get value for HIS extra
$200, would you?

BG> I do believe that you've locked yourself into a modem which will never be 
BG> anything more than it is now.  And if you don't mind that, fine.  

PE> Yeah, I would agree with that.  I said at the outset that no matter
PE> what modem I bought, I would have to live with all the bugs that 
PE> were in it, because I knew at the outset that no-one was going to
PE> fix my bugs.

That's a totally unfair assumption, and one which has already been proved
wrong to a degree.  USR can and HAVE issued bugfix SDLs, while NetComm may
find it a bit more difficult with their hard-coded Rockwell chipset.

BG> pity you insist on running Austel approved, because the sysop price for the 
BG> Courier is US$249, which is not too shabby at the current A$0.78/US$1.00 
BG> exchange rates.

Oops, that should have read A$1.00=US$0.78, BTW.

PE> I thought the Courier was meant to be cheaper here?  Something about
PE> less sales tax?

How so?  Cheaper than what?  That US$249 is the American sysop price,
although at one stage (and possibly even now), USR were accepting
applications from Australian sysops, and for the same price.  Incidentally,
sales tax is still 21% regardless.

PE> If you want to convince me that I got landed with a lemming in order
PE> to save $200, you have to come up with something that interests *ME*.

BG> I can't answer that, because apart from murdering pigeons, I have 
BG> absolutely no idea what you find interesting.  

PE> Very little actually.  Speed (standard speeds) and incoming faxes 
PE> come to mind.

33600 bps is soon to become a standard speed, in case you didn't realise
it.  Should be ratified around June this year.  Apart from Rockwell, most
other modem manufacturers have been marketing a USR-compatible 33k6bps
protocol for nearly a year now, too.

BG> Did you ever have a read of the Courier's on-line manual, which lists all 
BG> of its extra features in great detail?

PE> No.  But the major ones you have mentioned are of little interest.

Then how do you think you know what you don't need, if you don't even know
what features the USR has available?

PE> Most of my users are local, and if they buy proprietry modems they
PE> deserve all they get. 

BG> That's a bit unfair, don't you think?  

PE> No.  Proprietary standards are a menace.

I disagree.  There are times when they can be a definite advantage.  HST is
known to work under conditions which won't support any other protocol. 
Proprietary protocols are fine, just as long as they are supported.

BG> And you have V.FC after all...

PE> If they come for no extra cost, I guess they're not a problem.  I have
PE> seen V.FC connects here before, and I am wondering whether the stupid
PE> V.FC has somehow interfered with the V.34 negotiation.  I'll have to 
PE> see what happens if I switch it off for a while, assuming I can.

V.FC can't interfere with V.34 negotation, as they are completely different
and separate protocols.  That's the whole point of the V.8 calling tones
(not to be confused with V.8 CI tones).

PE> What concerns me is people like Dieter, who are using a standard modem, and 
PE> not connecting.

BG> Is he still having problems then?  

PE> Not right at the moment, but he may in the future, or maybe someone
PE> else with an SE will.

Such pessimism!  If it works now, what makes you think it won't later?

BG> BTW, did he have any problems connecting with Paul's Courier while you had 
BG> it?  I forget now.

PE> No, he had no problems with the Courier or the Viper.  Maybe I
PE> should swap with the Spirit Viper, which I can do for free? 

Up to you, but I happen to think that'd be taking a backwards step myself. 
NetComm may have their problems, but they also seem to be a little more
forthcoming with ROM upgrades than most other local manufacturers.

BG> No problem, the USRs work quite well when discriminating between fax and 
BG> data, although the required init$ is a bit of a nightmare.  I also read 
BG> somewhere that their Class 1 mode will also discriminate, but I have no 
BG> proof of that.

PE> Do you know if the Netcomm does? 

Yes, the M34F is fax Class 2 with adaptive answer, and if you have a squiz
in the Netcomm_Echo, you'll find a few init strings which will probably
work with Binkley.

PE> BTW, good news!  Binkley 2.60 is supposed to be released in a couple of 
PE> weeks (I've heard that before though!), so if Netcomm + Binkley 2.60 can do 
PE> faxing for me, that would be really great.

Both the USR and the M34F should work under those circumstances.

BG> I don't have your Courier "fault" list immediately at
hand, but there are a 
BG> couple of complaints on it which are COMPLETELY unjustified (the one about 
BG> the S56 register, for a start).  It's a shame also that you weren't using 

PE> Why is it unjustified that S56 should match the manual?

Because the original value for S56 was not ideal for that particular SDL. 
This was more than adequately explained in the SDL docs, and is neither a
problem nor a bug.  You may have noticed that USR included a small config
file with the new SDL, and this contains both factory and user alterations
which deviate from the original values as listed in the manual.  Each
individual SDL requires minor deviations from the norm, but unless you'd
RTFM (something you tend not to do, I've noticed), you wouldn't have
realised this.

BG> one of the better SDLs, as changing that is basically identical to changing 
BG> the entire modem.

PE> I was using the latest Austel-approved one.  If that is faulty, it
PE> is not my fault.

Sure, no argument with that at all.  Indeed, it seems that some SDLs
actually work better for some users than others.  It's a matter of trying
them, and sticking with the one which performs best under your
circumstances.

PE> Although I listed a greater number of technical faults with the USR,
PE> the problems were not as severe as those that I had with the Netcomm.

BG> And some weren't even legitimate problems at all.

PE> You'll have to elaborate on that.  I only listed them as faults because
PE> they were faults, IMO.

You saw them as faults, but not all of them were.

BG> Anyway, if you ever manage to find a modem which connects perfectly with 
BG> every other modem in the field, do let me know - I'd buy it at ANY price.

PE> What I'm after is the best one in that regard.  Oh, and that doesn't
PE> lock up, either.

And in my opinion, that's the USR.  Your mileage may vary, however.  :)

PE> Here's the fault list...

I'll comment on these in the next message.

Regards, Bill

--- Msgedsq/2 3.20