Best non-winmodem 56K v.90 PCI modem out there?

Oblique

Member
Nov 30, 2000
80
0
0
I'm looking price/performance wise... And before anyone asks, I can't get broadband bigger than 144/144 DSL out here in Sonoma, and don't think its worth it for nearly 50 bucks a month. Can't be ISA because my next mobo won't have it, and can't be a winmodem because I need to run linux (plus they suck).

<edit>clarified modem type needed</edit>
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Oblique, are you asking about a PCI vs. ISA modem?

If so, I am in the same situation. My next motherboard will not have an ISA slot. I have tried 1 Lucent LT winmodem that was terrible. I am willing to try again but would like a suggestion as to one that someone has had some good luck with. Model and even a suggested store to get it at would be nice and helpful. Trying to stay under the $30 range if possible.

No cable or DSL here either.


 

divinemartyr

Platinum Member
Oct 18, 2000
2,439
1
71
U.S. Robotics 56K Performance Pro Modem

Has on-board processing chips so windows or linux doesn't do any of it. Also supports DOS, as well as windows and linux. Excellent modem, will cost you $80 retail.

divinemartyr
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Oblique,Just to get you more confused,Diamond SupraExpress 56i V PRO modem as given me excellent service.Ooops just read your post title this is a Winmodem I believe not sure on this.

:)
 

Brian48

Diamond Member
Oct 15, 1999
3,410
0
0
Well, first of all, I'm in complete agreement that the Actiontec is probably the best PCI &quot;hardware&quot; modem out there you can find. It's a little pricey (I paid $100 over a year ago), but you get what you pay for. I'd check around, the price should have come down by now.
 

Modus

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,235
0
0
etech,

In general, all Lucent LT PCI modems are created equally. It's the drivers that make the difference. Essentially, the drivers ARE the modem. Lucent and Motorola both do a great job releasing timely updates that are universally compatible with all modems using their chipsets. Lucent even released a V.92 driver for the LT recentely.

Linux does have support for Lucent LT modems through an unsupported binary driver for 2.2.x kernels. Apparently it works OK, though obviously not as well as the newer 5.92 drivers for Windows.

Finding a PCI non-winmodem is very tough these days. Even so-called &quot;true hardware&quot; models from 3Com still need a fairly hefty COM port emulation driver and other software, making them problematic under Linux.

But you know the rest of this story ;)

There are a number of reasons to avoid higher priced &quot;hard modems,&quot; especially those made by 3Com/USR, in favor of a common PCI winmodem.

1) Winmodems are dirt cheap.

While a good Lucent LT or Rockwell/Conexant HCF winmodem can easily be found for less than $10 US (see PriceWatch) the cheapest hardware modem costs nearly four times as much: $36 plus shipping and handling. And for a 3Com part, you'll pay even more. By contrast, you can sometimes find winmodems for $5 or even for free with special promotions.

Everything else we put in our computers is subject to a price/performance ratio. In other words, if the performance of a more expensive part does not scale linearly with its price, we don't buy it. (RDRAM, anyone?) The same reasoning must be applied to hardware modems. They certainly don't perform four times as well as winmodems of a quarter the price, and as we'll see, they often don't perform any better at all.

2) Ping times and throughput are not an issue.

Modern Winmodems such as those based on the Lucent LT chipset will display ping times below 100ms and connect speeds around 48000, which is more than adequate for any Internet activity, including online gaming. Any recent softmodem -- especially the HCF variety, where the hardware handles a bit more of the duty -- should exhibit similar performance. Below, a cut and paste job from a generic Lucent LT v.90 PCI, which sells for as low as $9 on PriceWatch:

C:\WINDOWS>ping -n 10 router.infoserve.net

Pinging router.infoserve.net [199.175.157.4] with 32 bytes of data:

Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253

Ping statistics for 199.175.157.4:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 105ms, Average = 98ms

You may object that pinging an ISP would always yield good results. Actually, it's the only fair way to compare latency between modems. Pinging your ISP reduces the number of variables down to three: your modem's performance, the quality of your phone lines, and the nature of your ISP's modem pool. If we were to compare modems by pinging a fixed point on the Internet, we would quickly introduce several more uncontrolled variables: Internet traffic, server load, number of hops, etc.

Even if you ping your own ISP with an expensive hardware modem, I think you'll find it extremely difficult to match these numbers.

Not bad for $9, eh? ;)

3) CPU utilization is minimal.

One of the main arguments against winmodems has been that they consume CPU cycles. Fortunately, manufacturers have always made sure to set minimum CPU guidelines so that the effect is not noticeable. If CPU usage was ever a problem, it certainly isn't today.

CPU power has increased many, many times faster than the technology behind softmodems. For instance, the CPU usage of a typical winmodem hovers below 5% on a Celeron 333. This is in the range of the power required by Windows to spin an hourglass cursor; it's certainly not something that will eat into your game play significantly. Once again, we see the benifit of an HCF winmodem solution, where the onboard DSP relieves much of the stress on the CPU. And now we have people running around with 1 GHz processors. Any drop in frame rate will barely be measurable, let alone visible.

4) They are reliable.

In my consulting business, I've sold dozens of PC's equipped with the cheapest Winmodems I could find. Only one has ever come back with a genuine hardware defect.

Many ISP support techs have a grudge against winmodems because they feel these types of modems are responsible for an innordinate number of support calls. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, almost all new computers sold today use winmodems; a person with a new computer and a modem problem will likely be using a winmodem, simply because they are more prevalent. Second, winmodems actually require the drivers they ship with. A new PC user who can't tell the difference between his RAM and his hard drive space will feel his eyes glaze over when confronted with a manual telling him how to install softmodem drivers. Instinct tells him to phone his &quot;Internet guys&quot; and get them to help.

In truth, winmodems are no more apt to fail than hardware modems, and probably less so, because they have fewer electronic components.

5) Driver/OS support is excellent.

The Lucent LT, for example, supports Windows 2000, Windows 9x, Linux (see [L]http://www.linmodems.org[/L] under the Vendor section), and even the obscure BeOS. Lucent also seems comitted to releasing a new driver every few months, which means your modem's performance will always be as high as possible.

6) Affordable broadband Internet technology puts any analogue modem to shame.

Anyone using the Internet for more than email and chat sees the need for widely available broadband Internet access to replace our antiquated 56k connections. Trying to enjoy streaming audio or video over a modem connection is like trying to sip a thick milkshake through a thin straw. With the availability and affordability of high speed Internet access growing at a steady rate, it would be foolish to invest more than the minimum amount in modem technology that is already obsolete.

So when you consider the facts, there are very few valid reasons to avoid winmodems.

Modus
 

maddmax

Senior member
Aug 24, 2000
351
0
0
My vote is for Actiontec call waiting pci hardware modem, $62 at kaypro.com. Modus, can we get a specific recomendation?
 

Modus

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,235
0
0
Maddmax,

Like I said, the brand of the modem doesn't matter one iota. You'll see the same situation with nVidia cards -- performance is identical when drivers, clock speed, and memory speed are identical. Just make sure you use the latest 5.92 drivers from Lucent.

I guess the reseller is more important the the brand, since that's who you'll deal with if anything goes wrong.

Modus
 

Oblique

Member
Nov 30, 2000
80
0
0
Modus - Thank you very much the insight. I was indeed going for a hardware modem just because I had heard that most winmodems were incompatable, and the linmodems sucked (as well as being few and far between). This was a year and a half ago, and it seems that times have changed. Could you recommend a specific reseller?

Rigoletto - I actually feel like i fell headfirst into one :confused:
 

Mem

Lifer
Apr 23, 2000
21,476
13
81
Modus,Maybe you can tell me the type I have is it a Winmodem or not? I believe it uses the rockwell chipset not sure what type, anyway(Diamond SupraExpress 56i V PRO)when I purchased it 2 years ago I had the OEM version plain box &amp; drivers so have no idea.

:)
 

Modus

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,235
0
0
Oblique,

Check Lucent LT at PriceWatch for a list of places selling it. You can cross-reference the names with Reseller Ratings, if you like. As for Linux, this link will let you download the 5.68 drivers for 2.2.x kernels. Your mileage may vary with Linux, but for $10, how can you go wrong?

Modus
 

velvtelvis

Member
Nov 14, 2000
162
0
0
Hereis a decent page dealing with the winmodem/linux issue. Actualy, it's about the only page I've found specificly dealing with the issue.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Modus, If all Lucent LT winmodems are created equally then I don't want another one of the crappy things in my system ever again. I bought a Genitech Lucent LT winmodem. I used three different sets of drivers, two from the manufactuer and the reference drivers. On one ISP I could not connect at all, on AOL I could only connect at 33K. My USR ISA modem will connect at 49 to 50K realiably. I wasted most of a weekend trying to get the Genitech modem to work, it never did. I guess I will have to bump my price range up a little and look at the actiontechs.


Thanks to all others for the orginal and helpfull replies.
 

velvtelvis

Member
Nov 14, 2000
162
0
0
I just found this as well. I'm a little wary of it as I've never heard of a modem hooking up to a KB jack before. Anyone ever used one of these?

For $30 I'm tempted to try it out.
 

Modus

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,235
0
0
I really doubt it actually hooks up through your keyboard port. That line near the bottom of the specs probably means that it provides an extension for your PS/2 keyboard and mouse, so that you can plug them into the modem on your desktop instead of the back of the computer.

Modus
 

PG

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,426
44
91
No the SM56 is not a Lucent winmodem. It is crap. The system requirements are over 200 Mhz. http://www.motorola.com/networking/products/sm56_pci2_software_modem/index.html

This page has many Lucent winmodems listed: http://www.808hi.com/56k/ltwin7.htm

That guy has the best modem site I've ever seen.

See my earler post in this thread. Compgeeks has a PCI hardware modem for about $16 now. It only supports K56 flex, but can be flashed to support v.90. It's a good alternative to the Lucent at this price, but there is a risk when flashing. The Lucent gets new firmware through software upgrades. Compgeeks also has a Lucent winmodem for $15. You should check it out for the picture alone. The Lucent winmodems I've seem all look pretty much the same.