Hamish, at 09:09 on Aug 02 1996, you wrote to David Drummond ...

HM>>> But as Dave Hatch has pointed out, what good is a standard
HM>>> if nobody uses it? The EIA, ITU-TSS etc can issue 
HM>>> standards all they like, but if the industry has already 
HM>>> jumped on something else that's better, they've no chance.

>> Are you sugesting class 2 is better than class 2.0?

HM> Technically, I don't know; I haven't used, studied etc class 
HM> 2.0. However, with little industry support so far for 2.0, 
HM> the effect is just that.

Not having to piss around with the DTE speed when an incoming fax arrives
is definitely a boon and makes it MUCH easier to set up (at least with
BGFAX).

>> As in V.34 is/was better than V.FC and yet Rockwell were 
>> pouring out V.FC modems?  Rockwell will most likely deliver 
>> class 2.0 chips when they have exhausted their supply of the 
>> class 2 ones, as they did with the V.FC
>> stuff.

HM> But V.34 is technically far superior to V.FC, and it works. 
HM> Perhaps if either class 2 didn't work properly, or class 2.0 
HM> was significantly improved over 2, then 2.0 might take off, 
HM> as V.34 did.

>> I have class 2.0 software which appears to work extremely 
>> well (and when I have identified/solved my adaptive answer 
>> problem, I will register it with you :-) )

soon :-)

David
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10