To: George T. Santamaria who wrote (41261 ) 3/27/1998 8:14:00 AM From: David Lawrence Respond to
It was Boardwatch Magazine, with the article written by Jack Rickard -- both highly respected. Here's a link to the article - it's a long piece and takes a minute to load (½ a minute if you're running x2), but it is definitely worth reading, so allow yourself 10-15 minutes.boardwatch.com (there is a follow up link a little further down in this post)only fallacy with their real-world test is that all of their testing was done from the same set of POTS lines, but even so it leaves one to wonder why x2 modems handled them so well and K56Flex didn't.Both Hayes and Rockwell assured us we were doing something wrong and that they had tons of data proving that their modems were great. They threatened to fly people out. They warned us repeatedly that we needed to be accurate. But we received no useful suggestions, data, or otherwise useful information. We were told point blank that US Robotics was lying. We had to go over it about three times before they finally understood that WE were doing the testing, we weren't lying, and US Robotics was as much a potential victim of our evil plots as they were. news.com Rickard predicted the performance disparity will carry over to the new v.90 standard because of the way the standard is written. "This is going to persist in the v.90," he said. "V.90 is the standard for how the modems talk to each other. But how the actual process is implemented is up to the actual modem developers.""Everybody's client implementation is going to be different," he said. "It gives you a highway, but you choose the car." 3Com's Powell said that he examined the lines used in the study and found them to be "extremely average." [My gut still hurts from laughing at that one!]"The analysis and the coverage that I've seen Boardwatch write is typically very well done," he said. "I've never had any reason to doubt them."
