Re: modem config.............

[nospam [at] janes.demon.co.uk (Matthew Collins)]

On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 11:26:00 +0000 (GMT), Al Hudson <eah106 [at] york.ac.uk>
wrote:

>Heh, I disagree with both of you ;) Winmodems *are* more likely to have a
>black sleeve, because the frequencies on board are higher therefore
>could do with the shielding. Being BABT approved doesn't mean it needs to
>be shielded (the pc case can do that), the shielding is quite often there
>not because of the RF output of the thing, but because of the high
>voltages involved with the telephone system. That's why you have to
>measure out the creep distance between your modem and your other cards
>(has anyone here done this? No?).

Eh? Creep distance, whats that then. I stand by my original statement
though. All the internal modems I've seen (Years ago, before WinModems
were even invented) had the black sleave. The only ones I've seen that
didn't had the red triangle on the box.

>What's this then? http://www.3com.co.uk/56k/wininchoose.html . I'm happy
>to be proved wrong, but I didn't think there was any such bus restriction
>on a winmodem?

I stand corrected, sorry for giving misleading advise, but I thought
that I'd read somewhere that WinModems needed PCI bus, because they
were shifting more data across the bus. Sorry If I mislead anybody.

>
>Isapnp is a good bet. If that doesn't find it, nothing will. Probably, a
>good way to check if the modem is a winmodem or not is to send it a hayes
>command? I.e., send it 'AT' and you should get the response 'OK'. I don't
>know about this (someone will correct me, I'm sure), but I wouldn't think
>a winmodem will respond to the hayes command set. If they *do*, I think
>that's a rotten design decision ;))

Not releaseing the Specs or the source code to ANY driver is a rotten
design descision :), but I think that argument has been flogged to
death by now.

--
Matthew Collins

Start your own FREE mailing list at

&copy; 2000 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved