----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "debian-user" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 23:09 Subject: Re: Fw: X Windos System will not start
> Hoyt Bailey wrote: > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Kent West" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "debian-user" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 21:43 > >Subject: Re: Fw: X Windos System will not start > > > > > > > > > >>Hoyt Bailey wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>Ok Sold. I'm game but I need to get stable "stable" enough to get PPP > >>>working. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Chances are you have a so-called "soft-modem" (aka "winmodem"). You > >>_might_ get it working, but it'd be a whole lote easier to just put a > >>real modem on one of your serial ports. > >> > >>-- > >>Kent > >> > >> > >> > >The modem is a: > >Intel(R)536EP > >PCI Slot 3(PCI Bus 0, Device 11, Function 0) > >Mounted on Com3 > >I believe it is a 56K V92, that is all I know about it. Exceot that it works > >with Windows XP and has caused no problems. > >1. Is it a winmodem? > > > > > Yes, it is a "win-modem". From http://www.intel.com/design/modems/: > "The Intel® 536EP is a controller-less modem chipset . . . ." > > >2. What is a real modem? > > > > > A real modem has all the hardware necessary to MOdulate/DEModulate a > signal. Controller-less chips (aka "host-based", "soft modem", > "win-modem") have only enough hardware to interface the computer to the > phone line; all the modulating/demodulating is down via software: This > has two advantages: > 1) It's cheaper to manufacture > 2) It's fairly easy to "upgrade" > However, I believe the disadvantages of a soft-modem outweigh the > advantages: > 1) It sucks up resources (RAM, CPU cycles) that would otherwise be > off-loaded to the modem hardware > 2) It requires driver software, which can only be written if by > someone who understands the internals of the chip. In essence this means > that only the manufacturer of the modem can write the software, and > typically the manufacturer only writes software for one OS only, that > being Windows. A few dedicated hackers will often reverse-engineer a > driver, but that takes time, effort, and may produce a driver with > severe shortcomings. In other words, if you have a win-modem, don't > expect to use it in Linux, and especially don't expect to use all the > features it's supposed to have. > 3) It's much more difficult to diagnose communication problems. With > a real modem, you can use a simple command from the command line to give > you some valuable information about the state of the hardware; with a > soft modem, you can never be sure if the problem is the OS or the driver > or the modem or the phone line or the protocol or the username/password > or . . . . > 4) There's less "insulation" between your computer and the lightning > strike in the next county over. Of course this can be greatly mitigated > with a surge suppressor on your phone line. > 5) You can't just yank the modem out of one machine and connect it > to another if need be. Instead you've got to connect it to a computer > with the right OS, and then install the driver. > > >3. Why might it be difficult to get it working? > > > > > See above: Disadvantage #2. I didn't do much research, but accordng to > this posting on the Linux Kernel Mailing list at > http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/linux/linux-kernel/2003-23/1091.html, it looks > like support for this modem has not yet been reverse-engineered yet. If > you have any influence at Intel, go complain to them; it's they who are > making your life difficult on this issue, not Debian. > > >Regards; > >Hoyt > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Kent > Thanks for the information I have heard about winmodems but never knew what the term ment. Regards; Hoyt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
