Re: A Livingston default modem string is bad for a USR modem

MIX System Operator (sysop@mixcom.com)
Mon, 11 Nov 1996 15:59:58 -0600

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Matthew S. Crocker: "Re: USR Total Control vs. PM 3 (fwd)"
Previous message: MIX System Operator: "Re: No 2400 baud support on PM3"
Maybe in reply to: Carl Oppedahl: "A Livingston default modem string is bad for a USR modem"

At 07:08 PM 11/10/96 -0500, Carl Oppedahl wrote:
>I have yet to see anyone articulate a reason why the &w is important, and
>why the same string without the &w is not just as good.

Actually I use &W&W1 in case it reads from the 2nd profile, but I do not
leave the ports with a modem entry. 'set al mo' is done, set 'em once.

Also the Supras have +MS settings that take a second setting that are lost
when the standard profile is saved. Don't want that lost.

Lastly I found slightly better results w/o the modem tables set for the ports.

------------
Jeff Mountin
sysop@mixcom.com

MIX Communications
Serving the Internet since 1990

Sure my business card says "Senior Network Administrator"
They still make me do just about anything.

Next message: Matthew S. Crocker: "Re: USR Total Control vs. PM 3 (fwd)"
Previous message: MIX System Operator: "Re: No 2400 baud support on PM3"
Maybe in reply to: Carl Oppedahl: "A Livingston default modem string is bad for a USR modem"