In a msg on , Bob Juge of 1:106/2000
writes to Dale Ross:
CT>>> Why is that? (at the risk of going off topic)  Is it because 
CT>>> most of the BBS coders (such as Scott) have concentrated on 
CT>>> OS/2, or it is that "TAPI thing" again? 
BJ>> Simple.  There is no 100% working equivalent replacement for 
BJ>> OS/2's SIO/Vmodem written for NT or 95.
 DR>> So you've tested COM/IP?
 BJ> No, I haven't.  And believe it or not, I would be happy if it 
 BJ> works as promised. :-)
It 'mostly' works...the trick is that it uses it's own AT commands which need 
to be added as needed, in addition to the regular AT commands.
Likewise, I've gotten information that the 'hang-up' string for a VModem 
connect is a little odd...requiring the "+++" and the ATH0 command.
-zf-
--- msgedsq 2.1
---------------