I work at an ISP and I am always wondering what is the best one for our customers. We use V.90 modem banks. We just switched over to these a few weeks ago when we had a V.90/X2 combo. I hated X2 and it is alot better now that it is gone for good!
Poll: What is the best dialup modem you have used?
- Thread starter Ace69
- Start date
I think as long as its not a winmodem, the differences are pretty darn minimal. Get the cheapest one you can.
The best modem I've had is probably my old 3Com/USR Sportster 33.6 internal ISA. It's been through a lot. Its firmware was upgraded to 56k x2, and then to V.90. Still performs like a champ and works with EVERYTHING I throw at it. Paid a lot for it (about $150 back in 1997) but I have no regrets. Haven't had to replace it in all this time. I'm kinda wondering if 3Com will release a V.92 upgrade for it. I'm not keeping my hopes up, but it would be nice.
I can tell you why what's the worse modem I've used...USR 2976. I can't even initiate the setup program and the idiots at USR won't help because it's an OEM modem. Imagine their software doesn't work and they won't help because the hardware is OEM.
Best analog modem in existence:
USR Courier v.everything v.90 internal ISA (25 MHz). Of course, many of your customers will have some trouble finding/affording one.
USR/3com internal PCI hardware modems are very good, but are also a little bit hard to find, and you have to know what you are doing to actually BUY one. Most of the boxes of the USR/3com PCI winmodems (which I have had very BAD luck with), no longer say "winmodem" on them, so it is easy to screw up and end up with a winmodem. You won't know this until you either look at the card itself (if you know what you are doing), or until you have to start installing lots of software after you stick it in the computer, as opposed to just a simple driver. Tell your customers to look at the box. If it says anything about requiring windows, stay FAR away.
Lucent winmodems are a different story. The gamers should stay far AWAY from winmodems of any sort as they gobble up valuable system resources, but winmodems with Lucent chipsets are cheap and very reliable. I had very good luck with them, and I even have one in my second computer as a backup for the broadband connection. (backup for my primary computer is still that same, old, wonderful USR Courier v.everything v.90 internal ISA).
Nack
USR Courier v.everything v.90 internal ISA (25 MHz). Of course, many of your customers will have some trouble finding/affording one.
USR/3com internal PCI hardware modems are very good, but are also a little bit hard to find, and you have to know what you are doing to actually BUY one. Most of the boxes of the USR/3com PCI winmodems (which I have had very BAD luck with), no longer say "winmodem" on them, so it is easy to screw up and end up with a winmodem. You won't know this until you either look at the card itself (if you know what you are doing), or until you have to start installing lots of software after you stick it in the computer, as opposed to just a simple driver. Tell your customers to look at the box. If it says anything about requiring windows, stay FAR away.
Lucent winmodems are a different story. The gamers should stay far AWAY from winmodems of any sort as they gobble up valuable system resources, but winmodems with Lucent chipsets are cheap and very reliable. I had very good luck with them, and I even have one in my second computer as a backup for the broadband connection. (backup for my primary computer is still that same, old, wonderful USR Courier v.everything v.90 internal ISA).
Nack
I sure like my Diamond Supra Express 56K external. Of course it is only a backup to the ADSL connection. Come to think of it, since Verizon is our ADSL provider, our modem does get more than occassional use. 
Chuck
Chuck
the best modem i have ever used would to be my creative labs 56k modembalster, or my old 33.6 USR mode
i love USR they are definatly the best
i love USR they are definatly the best
Actiontec Desktalk 56K x2 ISA (later upgraded to V.90). It connected at good speeds and it was by far the most well-behaved modem I've ever had.
The best modem I ever had was a Zoom 28.8 ... honestly. I had a USR 56k and some other 56k modem, but in my apartment complex I could never get anything higher than a 33.6 connection. Even then tho', my pings and download speeds were better, it seemed, with that trusty dusty old 28.8 modem.
There are a number of reasons to avoid higher priced "hard modems," 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 "Internet guys" 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
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 "Internet guys" 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
Ace69, what brand/model modem racks are they?
I work for an ISP, and we use Cisco AS5300's and Livingston Portmaster 3's (and a few USR total control racks for X2). For the most part there is no problem with any of the racks, aside from that the total control is X2 only, so V.90 and K56Flex users only get up to 33.6. For the customers that do live in the sticks we seem to have more problems with them connecting to the ciscos.
In general, most modems will connect find, the most problematic are HSP micromodems, Connexant HCF modems, and modems with the Motorola SM56 chipset. They tend to have more problems connecting to the ciscos than the portmasters; ciscos giving a lot of hangups and slow connections. Aside from that there are very few dialup issues, of course there is the occasional hardware modem user or something odd that can't connect.
If you do have a customer having problems, I suggest going to Modemhelp.org and 808hi. Modemhelp has a tons of init strings for almost every modem, and 808hi has a good amount of troubleshooting information.
I work for an ISP, and we use Cisco AS5300's and Livingston Portmaster 3's (and a few USR total control racks for X2). For the most part there is no problem with any of the racks, aside from that the total control is X2 only, so V.90 and K56Flex users only get up to 33.6. For the customers that do live in the sticks we seem to have more problems with them connecting to the ciscos.
In general, most modems will connect find, the most problematic are HSP micromodems, Connexant HCF modems, and modems with the Motorola SM56 chipset. They tend to have more problems connecting to the ciscos than the portmasters; ciscos giving a lot of hangups and slow connections. Aside from that there are very few dialup issues, of course there is the occasional hardware modem user or something odd that can't connect.
If you do have a customer having problems, I suggest going to Modemhelp.org and 808hi. Modemhelp has a tons of init strings for almost every modem, and 808hi has a good amount of troubleshooting information.
Anyone want to volunteer to go to Modus's house, find his PC, and format C: so that he will no longer have his infamous "cut-and-paste" Winmodem diatribe! I doubt he would be up to retyping the whole thing in. Also destroy any scanners in case he tries to OCR a printed version back in.
20 years in the future when everyone has 10 Gb/sec fiber optic internet connections to their houses, Modus will still be here, fighting the good fight for ancient winmodems. heheheh...
I doubt he would be up to retyping the whole thing in. Also destroy any scanners in case he tries to OCR a printed version back in.20 years in the future when everyone has 10 Gb/sec fiber optic internet connections to their houses, Modus will still be here, fighting the good fight for ancient winmodems. heheheh...
Thanks for the replies guys. It seems that alot of you tend to stay away from the winmodems. I figured as much. That was an interesting post though modus. I never knew that a Lucent winmodem could get even those pings times from your ISP. I just wish it were easier to get these customers the correct drivers. I bet 90 percent of the time, customers call in with these old pieces of crap and want me to troubleshoot their conn. I usually just give them a simple init like AT+MS=V34. For the people that don't know any better, the V.34 conn works fine for them, but there are always a few that gripe because "I am connected only at 33,600 now!". I hate customers that can look down at their conn and see that they are connected slower. Some people even gripe because they are "only getting connected at 48,000". These people think if they have a 56K modem, then they should get 56K. If only all the public that had internet access were just a little bit knowledgable!
<< Ace69, what brand/model modem racks are they? >>
We just put the new total control chassis in and I think it is a 3COM, but don't stick me to that because I don't work in the same building that they do, so I am not for sure. I just get all the information on what they do.
<< Ace69, what brand/model modem racks are they? >>
We just put the new total control chassis in and I think it is a 3COM, but don't stick me to that because I don't work in the same building that they do, so I am not for sure. I just get all the information on what they do.
I have both a USR ISA 33.6 upgraded to v.90 (thanks to the Russians) and 2 LT Winmodems.
LT Winmodems are much more troublesome with speed variances that is clearly evident. True there are generic drivers, but they all make my modem SLOWER. On the other hand, the USR's last upgrade was in 1998 as has consistently delivered good performance.
LT Winmodems are much more troublesome with speed variances that is clearly evident. True there are generic drivers, but they all make my modem SLOWER. On the other hand, the USR's last upgrade was in 1998 as has consistently delivered good performance.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter