When I boot the same machine in Windows 95, I don't need the init string.
Go Figure.
The Mwave version I loaded is 2.2 (first available from IBM in May97). So
far, I haven't found a way to identify the version of MWave running on a
machine, I had to reload it just to make sure it was 2.2.
Is there any word about the seemingly broken V.42 implementations that hang
up after 12 resyncs? Is this a Livingston problem or a problem with all
(or most) modems? Is there a fix? Should I try and get MNP to work? Is
error control and modem compression really not necessary since I'm using
PPP and PPP compression (what ever that is) anyway? What do people think?
Finally, on a completely different subject: I have people calling in from
places like Brazil and the UK on very poor quality lines. With our old
analog modems held together with duct tape on a shelf, we added the init
string S10=50 so that the modems would not hang up until 5 seconds after
Carrier Detect drops. This seems to help. Is there anyway to do something
similar with my Digital Modems? We are new to this PM3, and I want to have
all my i's crossed and t's dotted before we switch users over to it.
Thanks in advance,
Dave Truckenmiller
dtrucken@zsassociates.com
P.S. I really like this list, I've learned so much about modems and stuff
that I'm nearly ready to quit and start a new life making pottery!
I'm sure Livingston tested the MWave with the latest drivers, but that
doesn't change the fact that I have yet to see an MWave the worked
properly. I'm sure the MWave *works*, but not all that well.
Here's a web page where you can find all kinds of neat INIT strings that
fix various modems that are "broken":
http://iav.com/~livingston/modeminit.html
I'm not sure if the USR Sportster fix is listed in there, but we've had
success with "ATS15.7=1".
Chad Scott | chad@txdirect.net
Systems Administrator | Voice 210-308-9800 x206
Internet Direct, Incorporated | FAX 210-308-9240
=========================================================
Finger chad@txdirect.net for PGP Public Key
-----Original Message-----
From: Kelley Lingerfelt [SMTP:pm2e@cococo.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 1997 2:19 PM
To: Chad Scott
Cc: Scott Lagos; portmaster-users@livingston.com
Subject: Re: 56K Modems - Do I really want mine?
On Wed, 20 Aug 1997, Chad Scott wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Scott Lagos wrote:
>
> > So with all these reported problems with the 56K modems, is anyone
willing
> > to say..."Keep'em Livingston......and send them to me when they work."?
>
> THIS IS *HALARIOUS*. All I can remember last month was, "SEND ME MY DAMN
> MODEMS!" Now I'm hearing, "KEEP YOUR DAMN MODEMS!"
>
It wasn't that *Hilarious* at the time he wrote the letter... About the
only reports that were coming in at the time, were not good at all.
> You've got people on one side saying ping times are down, connect rates
> are up, and generally the Lucent stuff is a better modem. On the other
> side, various Sportsters won't work (to which there is a workaround, I
> believe),
I hear there is one, but what is it? When will Livingston ever post some
of these workarounds or even acknowledge them?
> MWave's won't work (like they ever did in the first place), and
> WinModems have problems (which is essentially a USR MWave).
Check out this URL
http://www.livingston.com/Marketing/Products/56Krules.shtml
and read the list of client modems that are compatible with the PortMaster
3? Look what number 27 is?
Later
Kelley