• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Poll: Who makes the best 56K modems?

R

Rigoletto

Banned
Seems like the features vary a bit between modems but that Rockwell has more features than Lucent. I also thought that 3Com and Hayes were overpriced for what they are.I think Hayes are living in a world of their own, they've really made some overpriced modems. If anybody can point to some hidden advantage to Hayes modems I would be interested to know.
I bought a mod tech Superhighway external modem so I could switch it between computers and even use it with linux if I dared.

Three modems came for special consideration: a Tashika, a BT prologue, and the Superhighway one. The BT seems to be a Tashika rebadged (I have used the BT one before and couldn't switch the f***ing speaker off).
http://www.modulartech.com/dtvprod1.htm
Anyway I think the modtech one is a real whizz because it has voice duplex and answering machine- for £40 it's gone cheap.

P.S. I am off to read up on modems in Scott Mueller again. Bye.
 
Diamond SupraExpress series is nice and speedy. They have Conexant chip, which I'm pretty sure is the result of Rockwell being merged with them.
 
The best at least when i was on 56k was always USR Courier modems. I bought my 56k v.everything courier for $275. They are suppose to be upgradable forever. I heard people upgrading 2400 baud ones to 56k.
 
Short answer:

Any modem based on a Lucent LT chipset.

Long answer:

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
 
Alas, I too have fallen prey to the siren call of low cost, high bandwidth technology. You'll have to forgive me if my heart just isn't into the winmodem debates 😉

Modus
 
Huh, ADSL or even ISDN are more for the future as I see it. Right now the internet is still built around sites with content designed for 56K modems. Besides, unmetered tariffs for conventional phone lines are so cheap nowadays.
It surprises me that Lucent winmodems work in Linux. I was led to believe winmodems couldn't be supported. Thus, I could have bought one for £15+ but I still believe external modems are better because I believe in portability and freeing strains on PSUs. I am especially keen on seeing the activity lights to know just what is happening with my modem, and having a front- facing connection for a headset.
I see some incredible integrated solutions with modems on them, like PC chips socket 7 with Video, audio, LAN and modem on the board for £60. The mind boggles.
My understanding of winmodems was that they were less reliable under poor line conditions than hard modems.
 
winmodems used to be suck, but the new lucent ones are actually better than hardware modems in most ways, or so i've heard.
 
The cheapest external modem will run circles around the most expensive internal ones. Case in point: according to PacBell, my phone line is noisy and is considered marginal for anything above 33.6 I went through 2 ISA's and 2 PCI's (and 3 different mobo's) with constant drop outs. I bought an el-cheapo Best Data Products from Fry's and that ended all my connection problems!
 
i used to have a 3comm software modem that always connected at 45333. I recently got a lucent software modem and now the connection is never lower than 50666kbps
 
as a new forum member i can only relate my experience. i had 10 locations to dial into every night to download information. many were in small rual areas with poor line qualities. after sepnding megabucks on usr modems - external and very poor response and line dropping we switched to lucent chips - cheapest modems i could get. no problems. be sure that the modem u use has the setup strings so u can set the speed if u have poor line quality at a given time. line quality is the biggest problem and the baby bells do not want to address it except in major population areas.
now lucky am on cable not many problems except if to many people in area get on at the same time = then very slow & i go to dial up. hope wireless or better tech comes soon.
 
The external modem is better at being an external modem, but that's about it. In other words, unless you think you can bring it with you to parties and pick up chicks with it, you're better off paying five times less for a Lucent LT winmodem that does the same job.

(And no, status lights do not count for anything; when was the last time they helped you solve a modem problem with any other solution than "reset the modem"?)

Modus
 
Diamond Supra Express series modems. there's no competition for quality. they're supported WELL in Linux, they have some of THE best speed (none of this 3com crap), becuase they were based on k56flex, which imho was better then x2, and they have MANY features.

oh and they're hardware 😛

modus, everyone knows that Lucent modems are great if you want low cost modems, and don't need to worry about CPU usage, and don't need to worry about phone line quality (well, even then they aren't bad when it comes to phone line quality). but you want the best?, get a Diamond Supra Express (NOT SupraMAX, that's their winmodem, though it's pretty good too!).
 
Soccerman,

<<everyone knows that Lucent modems are great if you want low cost modems, and don't need to worry about CPU usage, and don't need to worry about phone line quality (well, even then they aren't bad when it comes to phone line quality)>>

CPU usage is no longer an issue. Say it with me now: &quot;CPU usage is no longer an issue.&quot; Good.

For the past two years, processors have been fast enough to run most winmodems at around 5% CPU load (and that was with a Celeron 333). Steady driver improvement, blazing CPU speeds, and the DSP present on some winmodem chipsets like the Lucent LT and Conexant HCF, have combined bring processor load down to such an insignificant level that it is barely measurable, let alone noticable.

As for line noise, why mention it if it's not a problem?

Bottom line, the BEST modem, like the best car, is not the one that outperforms its competition by a miniscule hair's breadth, but the one that combines solid performance with a relatively attractive price.

Modus
 
yes I know, it barely uses anything, but this being from the tweaker side of me, EVERY LITTLE BIT HELPS. in otherwords, if you want that extra FPS, going hardware might be what you want.

hehe.. modus, you're never going to bring me to the winmodem side! by the time that would happen, I'd have something like ADSL..
 
My USR 56k external that I paid some guy $40 for was the best modem that I've ever bought.

The bennies of external far outweigh the extra $30 that you pay for one over an internal.

1) Save precious PCI slots
2) Are a godsend to those i810 boards that are already bogged down by onboard video, sound, NIC, and whatever else they manage to stick on there.
3) If my modem gets locked up on a bad disconnect from my ISP, all I do is hit the power switch on the modem. None of this rebooting crap.
4) The lights ARE useful in troublshooting
5) they are automatically detected and drivers are installed by win98, might seem trivial, but if you loose your winmodem install disk, and you reformat/fuxor up your winmodem drivers/ect then you aren't screwed. If you loose your winmodem drivers you can't exactly connect to the internet to download the latest drivers can you? THis ain't a problem w/ hardware based modems. Just give it a generic 56k driver that comes in the windows driver database and you are good to go.

I won't go anymore into the software/hardware arguement. THis has been argued to death. Arguing about this is about as productive as slamming your head agains a cement wall.

Cheers 🙂
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top