Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : COMS & the Ghost of USRX w/ other STUFF -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: David Lawrence who wrote (14316)	3/27/1998 10:01:00 AM
From: jhild	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

Oh Lordy, some people just don't want to believe. "It flies in the face of common sense that if we had the kind of performance problems indicated in this study, that we would have had the kind of success that we have had," . . . [the ROK guy] I find statements like that to be the most laughable. Like selling a lot of them is proof of how good it is. Flying in the face of common sense indeed. It seems that he flies against a constant head wind himself. But the article does point out something I wasn't aware of - namely that the v.90 seems to enable different implementations and that x2 "style" would offer advantages over 56flex "style". I'm still thinking about why that would/could be true.

To: David Lawrence who wrote (14316)	3/27/1998 10:31:00 AM
From: joe	Respond to of 22053

Nice job! Maybe we should all start going to our local large computer stores and make sure they're doing a good job of selling x2 modems correctly - then report foul ups to COMS :) (Nah, too much work...) Joe

To: David Lawrence who wrote (14316)	3/27/1998 12:10:00 PM
From: Scrapps	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 22053

David, have you noticed that none of them go and rag on Jack Rickard directly? Why don't they write or call him and discuss it? Could it be that Jack has his ducks lined up already? It's been awhile, but I don't recall the local loop as being a part of the connection being tested. I thought they made sure that the POTS wasn't a factor and was a good clean connection before going forward with the testing. Maybe I should find time to re-read the article. If the POTS was a factor and an element being tested...I'm sure Boardwatch would have been bouncing around from phone system to phone system...town to town. Oh...I did like the part about (parapharsing) "if you have an x2 connection"