Tim:
>> Going off at a tangent, would you fare better (speed-wise) with a
[and signal reliability-wise]
>> different modem? Over here, we have what are termed "rural modems"
>> which are designed to cope better with the harsh conditions of long
>> phone lines out in the bush. The usual off-the-shelf modems fail
>> miserably on such lines.
Ric Moore:
> I haven't a clue. The rural phone lines around here are pretty much
> terrible and I had to choke the modem down in the init string for
> anything to happen, including the login. It's that OR a bunch of old
> tired non-USRobotic friendly modems at the ISP with crap for
> compression. The modems you're talking about should sell like hot-cakes
> over here!
Sounds like you might want to see if you can get a modem designed for
bad line conditions, like our rural modems. If you get lots of
disconnects, or retries, they're designed to do that better than the
average modem, to start with.
> I'm still waiting on our Non-Profit to come up with my Satellite
> package, but getting money OUT of a Non-Profit is like squeezing raisins
> to get juice. ;) It takes a LOT of squeezing, as well as patience.
> ;) Ric
You'll have to get a demo, and get them addicted to it. ;-) That's the
usual computer *user* technique, isn't it?
--
(This computer runs FC7, my others run FC4, FC5 & FC6, in case that's
important to the thread.)
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
