On Fri, 7 Apr 2000, Alexander Else wrote:
> I don't think that's a valid comparison. If celeron machines refused to
> boot 4 in 5 times, frequently crashed after 5 minutes on the occasions that
> they did boot, and operate at 50% efficiency of the "full" chip then the
> comparison may have some merit :) There is a trade off between cost and
> performance. All of the software based modems I've seen fail to meet what
> I would consider to be an acceptable performance standard.
I have do disagree. I've got a DSP based "Winmodem" in my IBM laptop.
Without fail, it's worked from day one - often giving me _better_ connect
rates than external modems, without appreciable performance hit {it runs
under WindoZe NT, so the performance sucks anyhow}.
Sure, I don't use it now - but only because to get a decent PCMCIA LAN
card running udner Linux, I had to buy one which had LAN + Modem - and
needed the IRQ's the internal "modem" was running on.
> >These trends are part of the world we live in - and are, in large part,
> >responsible for the lower consumer cost of PC hardware today.
>
> That's fine except when a company knowingly ships a shitty product knowing
> that the consumer will have undue trouble and other companies will end up
> paying for the difference in cost. I think that's a very poor business
> ethic and at some point we've got to take the high ground and say, "hey, no
> more".
How much of this is a failing in the modem driver, and how much is a
failing in the OS itself? Can you prove conclusively the "modem" hardware
was substandard? If so, publish your proofs! Then I'll eat crow.
DaZZa
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
