Linux-kernel mailing list archive 1999-32,: Re: First WinModem for Linux

# Re: First WinModem for Linux

David Lang (dlang@diginsite.com)
Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:26:35 -0700 (PDT)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: David Lang: "Re: Wireless ethernet?"
- Previous message: David Hinds: "Re: New resources - pls, explain :-("

One comment for those of you taking the attitude that "Linux will never
support software based modems". You are to late, it already does. look in
the Ham section. There is support for hardware modems (TNC's) and sound
card based modems. While I agree that in most cases software based modems
are not a good idea I can see many places where a type 1 modem (as defined
below) would be reasonable for a low-end "internet terminal" type of
device.

David Lang

On Sun, 8 Aug 1999, Riley Williams wrote:

> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 1999 22:18:13 +0100 (GMT)
> From: Riley Williams <rhw@MemAlpha.CX>
> To: Mike A Harris <mharris@ican.net>
> Cc: Peter Desnoyers <pjd@fred001.dynip.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu>
> Subject: Re: First WinModem for Linux
>
> Hi Mike.
>
> >>>> That's short-sighted, Mike. A Linmodem makes a perfectly fine
> >>>> telco interface. It takes no more CPU than a buffered UART
> >>>> running at 57600.
>
> >>>> See http:/linmodems.org for reasonable uses of a linmodem.
>
> There are TWO types of [lw]inmodems, one worth considering, one not.
> Unfortunately, the latter is by far the commoner, and few people can
> tell the difference, so the general advice to avoid them completely
> still stands. The two types are:
>
> 1. [lw]inmodems with onboard DSP, where only the high level
> firmware is implemented on the host PC.
>
> 2. [lw]inmodems without onboard DSP, where everything beyond
> the telco isolation interface is implemented on the host
> PC.
>
> >>> What a crock. If a Winmodem/linmodem whatever software modem did
> >>> not use up a lot of CPU resources, then it would not suck so bad.
>
> >> Go back and read what he wrote until you understand why your
> >> reply doesn't refute what Russ said. If you still don't
> >> understand, check out the web site. (here's a hint - "modem" !=
> >> "telco interface")
>
> Here's another hint - type 2 [lw]inmodems are no more than telco
> interfaces under a different name, and that is little more than a
> marketing gimmick to allow the companies to sell their junk.
>
> > I don't care. As far as using a modem to connect to the
> > internet, or to connect to another computer is concerned, a
> > Winmodem uses and wastes CPU bandwidth and other valuable system
> > resources.
>
> Nobody with any sense expects to get 100% CPU usage on any system with
> a modem on it whilst the modem is in use, and that applies equally
> well to true hardware modems as to [lw]inmodems of any type.
>
> However, people with type 2 [lw]inmodems will usually be lucky to get
> more than 25% CPU usage on their systems because of the sheer load the
> [lw]inmodem driver puts on their system - and, daft as it may sound,
> the usable load they can put on their CPU's tends to go DOWN as the
> CPU speed goes up, simply because the delays the drivers have to
> introduce are fixed times, and the driver in general has to busy-wait
> for the relevant interval.
>
> In comparison, type 1 [lw]inmodems will normally allow at least 70%
> CPU usage for user applications, and hardware modems allow around 85%
> to 90% CPU usage - and both those figures tend to go UP as the CPU
> speed climbs.
>
> > The cost saved by using the winmodem, is wasted on the extra
> > money put out for the host CPU. The unreliability of the things
> > adds to the uselessness of them, as does their lack of
> > portability.
>
> Whilst that is true of type 2 [lw]inmodems, it does not really apply
> to type 1 [lw]inmodems
>
> > Nonetheless, manufacturers push them, and most people buy them
> > unknowingly, because they do not know any better. Some people
> > buy them because they are "winmodems" and that must mean that
> > they are "better" in Windows.
>
> All too true, unfortunately...
>
> > Most people that I know, that I've done business with that have
> > encountered problems with their modem in the last few years, it
> > was because it was a WINMODEM or equivalent, and they DID NOT
> > KNOW THAT THEY BOUGHT A PIECE OF CRAP HARDWARE - they trusted
> > their vendor, who ripped them off.
>
> Of those that cause problems, my experience says that over 90% will be
> type 2 [lw]inmodems at that. In fact, daft as it sounds, the only non
> type 2 [lw]inmodem I've come across that failed was a hardware modem
> that had been subject to a lightning strike on the phone line it was
> plugged into. I know several people with type 1 [lw]inmodems that have
> never caused any problems, and several others with hardware modems
> that have never caused any problems, but I only know one person with a
> type 2 [lw]inmodem that doesn't cause him any problems, and that's
> probably because he doesn't use it as he has an ethernet connection to
> the internet - the modem came with the PC, and didn't cost him
> anything...
>
> > Whats even funnier, is that even the people in the stores
> > selling the crap, don't even know half the time. "Is this a
> > winmodem", "no it is not", get home, put it in, Linux
> > no-comprende, read manual - windows only.... back to store, "I
> > said I DID NOT want a winmodem", "that isn't a winmodem", "Ok, I
> > said I did not want a modem that ONLY WORKS IN WINDOWS NO MATTER
> > WHAT IT'S CUTE LITTLE NAME IS", "oh, that modem should work..."
> > Open manual, show them "windows only" - shocked look ... 'oh...
> > um... ahh... try this modem instead..."
>
> That sounds like the staff at the local branch of PC World.
>
> > I live in an area where computer peripherals are not $5 for a
> > winmodem, and $300 for a real modem like some other people imply
> > they are. Here a crap software modem goes for about as low as
> > $40-50 or so, and a real modem, with real hardware, goes for
> > anywhere from $50-$200 or so. The $50 ones work just as good as
> > the $200 ones from my experience, but they are REAL modems, and
> > not software based.
>
> Locally, prices are as follows (all UK pounds):
>
> Hardware modem 30 to 350
> Type 1 20 to 50
> Type 2 15 to 70
>
> ISDN 25 to 700
>
> MIne is a USR Sportster 56k/VoiceFax hardware modem, and cost me all
> of 40 pounds, and it's never given me any hassle at all.
>
> > As such, ANYONE saving $10-$20 buy buying a winmodem, is getting
> > taken. If someone purposefully chooses one, because it is
> > cheaper after being warned what they are buying, then that is
> > fine, their decision.
>
> I act as a consultancy locally, and my advice regarding modems is that
> in general, what one saves buying a cheaper product, one will soon
> spend on increased telephone bills.
>
> > If someone buys a new system - $700-$5000 or more, and gets a
> > winmodem, I say they got ripped off by the vendor. The price
> > difference from $700 to $710 or $720 for a real modem on such a
> > low end system is not big enough to warrant the crap hardware in
> > a consumer product.
>
> For the manufacturers, the cost price difference between installing a
> [lw]inmodem or a hardware modem is usually less than five pounds, and
> well within their profit margins, so if one specifies that the system
> be supplied with a hardware modem rather than a [lw]inmodem, they will
> normally comply without any hassle.
>
> > There might be a demand for them, if you wish to look at it like
> > that, but I say the demand exists only because of the public's
> > general lack of understanding of technology. The things are a
> > burden to technology, and are a horrible thorn in the side of
> > technology.
>
> IMHO, they are holding back technology, and the sooner they get booted
> out of the market, the better. There's no way they can support ADSL
> with them, and I firmly believe that ADSL technology would be much
> more freely available were it not for the proliferation of
> [lw]inmodems, and both the customers and the telco's would be much
> better off as a result...
>
> > By the way, this has absolutely nothing to do with Linux, nor my
> > advocacy of it. I saw a friend get stuck with a 14.4k RPI modem
> > back in the good old DOS days, and not be able to replace it to
> > be able to use it for the purposes he wanted at the time because
> > the store wouldn't take it back after a few months. I then saw
> > many people have this happen, then with 28.8k modems, then 56k.
> > A lot of ISP's would not let people connect with software
> > modems, or they wouldn't be able to connect reliably. From a
> > helpdesk perspective, they are also horrible, as they cause a
> > LOT of troubleshooting, and extra work from that perspective as
> > well.
>
> I was working on a helpdesk when the things first came out, back in
> the days when 9600 was top of the range, and I've never rated them as
> worth anything.
>
> > Any money the damned things save a person initially, they will
> > waste in tech support, and/or in buying a new modem later on
> > that is a real one. Even worse, I've seen many people go buy a
> > new modem after being told their winmodem was at fault, and they
> > specified that they did not want a winmodem the second time, but
> > got one anyways, and didn't know until they had more problems
> > again a few weeks later, or days later.
>
> > So, I back up my stance against Winmodems. Nobody is going to
> > change my viewpoint on this matter in any way shape or form, so
> > you might as well not even try.
>
> > If you say, "but they are good for holding a window up", so is a
> > rock, and they are cheaper.
>
> > Winmodems are a horrible disgrace to the technology age, as are
> > all other software based crap hardware. Use any argument you
> > like to counter, but my stance is very firm, and very well
> > thought out, and covers many cases, based on my personal
> > experience, and that of hundreds of RIPPED OFF customers.
>
> You'll get no arguments from me other than what I've expressed in this
> missive, and my feeling is that we're pretty much in total agreement
> on the subject.
>
> Best wishes from Riley.
>
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | There is something frustrating about the quality and speed of Linux |
> | development, ie., the quality is too high and the speed is too high, |
> | in other words, I can implement this XXXX feature, but I bet someone |
> | else has already done so and is just about to release their patch. |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
> * ftp://ftp.MemAlpha.cx/pub/rhw/Linux
> * http://www.MemAlpha.cx/kernel.versions.html
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: David Lang: "Re: Wireless ethernet?"
- Previous message: David Hinds: "Re: New resources - pls, explain :-("