need WinXP drivers for Dell NW147 56K External USB Modem, Compatible Model Number: RD02-D400 [Archive]

Adam[_5_]

July 15th 15, 12:38 AM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Barry Schwarz" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:38:28 -0700, "Adam" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where can I download WinXP drivers for the following...
>>>>>
>>>>> Dell NW147 56K External USB Modem, Compatible Model Number: RD02-D400
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Dell-NW147-External-Compatible-Number/dp/B001L7IVCK
>>>> Have you tried the Dell website?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Remove del for email
>>>
>>> Thanks, hope this is the right one.
>>>
>>> Conexant D400 External USB 56K Modem Driver for WinXP
>>> http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/Drivers/DriversDetails?driverId=JC1CR
>>>
>>
>> Driver was successfully installed.
>>
>> However, I can't seem to send fax using MightyFAX v3.41 via DSL with
>> filter.
>> Sending a minimal cover page takes FOREVER.
>> Same results with other 56k USB modems as well. Why?
>>
>> Is it the software/MightyFAX? But an older MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10 is
>> able to send fax using a PC Card 56k modem in an old laptop running
>> Win98SE via DSL with filter. What gives?
>>
>
> Simple. Change FAX setting from 14400 to 9600.
>

Thanks, (Guru Paul) I took a snapshot of the "Send Fax" dialog that
shows the Connect BPS to be 9600.
I can upload the snapshot but to which website?

> VOIP does not typically handle FAX tones well, and
> so dropping to 9600 baud FAX mode may help.
>

Yes, thanks for your detailed diagram and explanation posted to
the following thread..."how to connect PC Card Modem to laptop - please
help"
================================================== ===============
"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
> > "Adam" > wrote in message
...
> >> "ED" > wrote in message
...
> >>> "Adam" > wrote in message
> >>> ...
> >>>> Operating System: Windows XP
> >>>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
> >>>>
> >>>> My old laptop had a couple of PC Card slots,
> >>>> one of which was used for a PC Card Modem.
> >>>> Now, I am interested in connecting this PC Card Modem to
> >>>> my new Windows XP laptop, which does not have PC Card slots.
> >>>> So, I am looking for a good PC Card Reader. Any suggestions?
> >>>> Or, is there a better approach?
> >>>>
> >>> One of the following should suit your purpose:
> >>>
> >
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH
> >> &Description=usb+modem+56k
> >> Thanks!!
> >>
> >> Unless I hear otherwise, I guess I'll try the following ...
> >> Rosewill RNX-56USB Conexant Hardware Based 56Kbps USB (Plug & Play)
> >> V.92
> >> Data/Fax/TAM Modem
> >>
> >
> > It looks like I may need a PCMCIA USB adapter after all in order to
> > salvage my PC Card Fax Modem (which works with DSL) after all.
> > The problem is that many fax modems will not work with DSL.
> > And, Rosewill Tech Support just confirmed this.
> >
> > Anyone with DSL using a 56k fax modem to send fax? If so,
> > what's the make/model of your 56k fax modem?
>
> [Note - copy and paste the below into Notepad or equivalent,
> and use Courier font, if you want to view the diagrams as I
> drew them.]
>
> I think before running off to the store, I'd slow down a bit first.
>
> There are many kinds of phone lines, but some are obscure enough
> we don't have to worry about them.
>
> Two common situations now, involve "ordinary POTS" versus VOIP.
>
> The definition of POTS is here - it's the old copper phone
> line we had in the 50's, with 4KHz or lower bandwidth.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_old_telephone_service
>
> Some telephone companies are eliminating POTS service, in favor of
> VOIP solutions. There might not even be a customer premise piece
> of equipment doing the VOIP, so the difference might not even be
> apparent to the home owner.
>
> We can take my house as an example. I still have POTS, plus they
> added ADSL to the line. I don't own a FAX machine, but if I did,
> it would work. I can add at least four filters and taps to the
> line if I want (I own four filters). Only one analog phone can
> go off-hook at a time, so there is only "one line".
>
> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
> modem ------------
Computer
> 4KHz baseband | | ethernet
> Filter Filter
> 4KHz or lower 4KHz or lower
> | |
> analog phone analog FAX
> RJ11 connector RJ11 connector
>
> In the previous diagram, I would be running a traditional, clunky,
> standalone FAX machine. No computer involvement in the faxing process
> in that example.
>
> Now, if I wanted, I could use a FAX modem on the computer, like this.
>
> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
> modem ------------
Computer
> 4KHz baseband | | ethernet
|
> Filter Filter
USB FAX
> 4KHz or lower 4KHz or lower
Modem
> | |
|
> analog phone
+---------------------------------+
> RJ11 connector RJ11 connector
>
> The previous diagram also works, because of the regular, reliable 4KHz
> passband.
>
> When the telephone company stops supporting POTS, they use VOIP or
> voice over internet protocol. That can involve the ADSL modem. So
> only the modem "sees" the phone line, like this. Now, there is
> no 4KHz analog content at all. Just the modulation above 28KHz for
> ADSL. The ADSL sees the full spectrum, just as before, because there
> is no filter in front of the ADSL modem.
>
> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
> modem ------------
Computer
> ethernet
>
> To make it more transparent as to what is happening, now I add VOIP to the
picture,
> and also include a router for more computers. VOIP is "downstream" of the
> modem, and "upstream" of the router. The reason the first implementations
> sat upstream of the router, was to make it easier to access all the port
> numbers used by VOIP protocols (control path and data path). So this
> diagram,
> compresses that useless wire in the middle of the picture, to make more
> room for the other junk.
>
> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45 RJ45
> RJ45
> Telco ------------------ ADSL modem ---- VOIP 2 Port Box ----
Router ----- Computer
> | RJ11 |
----- Computer
> | |
> (4KHz) (4KHz)
> analog analog
> phone FAX
>
> Now, again, I can replace that clunky, separate "analog FAX" machine, with
> a FAX modem on the computer. I'll run a line from the second computer,
> which has a USB FAX or PCMCIA FAX device plugged into it.
>
> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
> Telco ------------------ ADSL modem ---- VOIP 2 Port Box ----
Router ----- Computer
> | RJ11 |
----- Computer
> | |
|
> (4KHz) (4KHz)
USB FAX
> analog |
Modem
> phone |
|
>
+----------------------------+
> RJ11 connector
>
> Now, what you're attempting to do, is run "FAX over VOIP". This is not the
same
> as running "FAX over 4KHz baseband", as in the first diagram.
>
> And that's what you need to research. What impairment does using VOIP
> to *emulate* an analog phone service cause ? You need to be absolutely
> certain, you know how your telephone company (or you yourself) have
> arranged to make that "phone line" you're using. VOIP is a lot different
> than an old POTS copper line.
>
> So it's not really an argument about how sweet a particular
> brand of FAX modem happens to be. It's an argument about
> whether the phone line is "plain" or "VOIP" type.
>
> In some households, the "VOIP box" is in the pedestal or outside
> the house, and the home owner may not even be aware they're on
> VOIP. Depending on when you did your setup (like some of
> my samples above), you as the home owner may already be
> aware you're using VOIP, because you actually own a VOIP
> box sitting in the room with you.
>
> Try search terms, such as "FAX over VOIP". One web page,
> tries to sell you a different IP protocol to send faxes
> (presumably, with a monthly bill). This web page, talks
> of dropping the FAX transmission rate, to make it work.
> The success or failure, might even depend on delay jitter
> in the VOIP service. Who knows...
>
> (site uses a lot of popup crap...)
> http://askbobrankin.com/fax_over_voip.html
>
> "The best tip I can offer is to reduce your fax transmission speed to
> 9600 bps to maximize VoIP fax success rates. The faster one tries to
> send a fax, the more likely it is to fail on a VoIP connection."
>
> Now, back to the discussion about which FAX modem is superior
> to which other FAX modem :-)
>
> Have fun,
> Paul
================================================== ===============

There's also a good explanation and diagram link here...

Modems, Faxes and VoIP
http://www.almcom.net/Modems_and_VoIP.html
http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html

Now it's crystal clear to me why not to send FAX over IP yet.
Voice is okay because voice is more forgiving.

The RJ11 connector is connected to the DSL filter,
which I doubt is VOIP since the old laptop is able to send FAX successfully.

Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax

Current laptop FAX setup (which fails to send FAX)...
OS / FAX software: Windows XP / MightyFAX v3.41
USB Modem: Dell NW147 56K USB Modem, Compatible Model Number: RD02-D400
[same for Rosewill RNX-56USB and TRENDnet
TFM-561U]

> Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 15th 15, 12:44 AM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Barry Schwarz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:38:28 -0700, "Adam" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where can I download WinXP drivers for the following...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dell NW147 56K External USB Modem, Compatible Model Number: RD02-D400
>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Dell-NW147-External-Compatible-Number/dp/B001L7IVCK
>>>>> Have you tried the Dell website?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Remove del for email
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, hope this is the right one.
>>>>
>>>> Conexant D400 External USB 56K Modem Driver for WinXP
>>>> http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/Drivers/DriversDetails?driverId=JC1CR
>>>>
>>>
>>> Driver was successfully installed.
>>>
>>> However, I can't seem to send fax using MightyFAX v3.41 via DSL with
>>> filter.
>>> Sending a minimal cover page takes FOREVER.
>>> Same results with other 56k USB modems as well. Why?
>>>
>>> Is it the software/MightyFAX? But an older MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10 is
>>> able to send fax using a PC Card 56k modem in an old laptop running
>>> Win98SE via DSL with filter. What gives?
>>>
>>
>> Simple. Change FAX setting from 14400 to 9600.
>>
>
> Thanks, (Guru Paul) I took a snapshot of the "Send Fax" dialog that
> shows the Connect BPS to be 9600.
> I can upload the snapshot but to which website?
>
>
>> VOIP does not typically handle FAX tones well, and
>> so dropping to 9600 baud FAX mode may help.
>>
>
> Yes, thanks for your detailed diagram and explanation posted to
> the following thread..."how to connect PC Card Modem to laptop - please
> help"
> ================================================== ===============
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>> > "Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >> "ED" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> Operating System: Windows XP
>> >>>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My old laptop had a couple of PC Card slots,
>> >>>> one of which was used for a PC Card Modem.
>> >>>> Now, I am interested in connecting this PC Card Modem to
>> >>>> my new Windows XP laptop, which does not have PC Card slots.
>> >>>> So, I am looking for a good PC Card Reader. Any suggestions?
>> >>>> Or, is there a better approach?
>> >>>>
>> >>> One of the following should suit your purpose:
>> >>>
>> >
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH
>> >> &Description=usb+modem+56k
>> >> Thanks!!
>> >>
>> >> Unless I hear otherwise, I guess I'll try the following ...
>> >> Rosewill RNX-56USB Conexant Hardware Based 56Kbps USB (Plug & Play)
>> >> V.92
>> >> Data/Fax/TAM Modem
>> >>
>> >
>> > It looks like I may need a PCMCIA USB adapter after all in order to
>> > salvage my PC Card Fax Modem (which works with DSL) after all.
>> > The problem is that many fax modems will not work with DSL.
>> > And, Rosewill Tech Support just confirmed this.
>> >
>> > Anyone with DSL using a 56k fax modem to send fax? If so,
>> > what's the make/model of your 56k fax modem?
>>
>> [Note - copy and paste the below into Notepad or equivalent,
>> and use Courier font, if you want to view the diagrams as I
>> drew them.]
>>
>> I think before running off to the store, I'd slow down a bit first.
>>
>> There are many kinds of phone lines, but some are obscure enough
>> we don't have to worry about them.
>>
>> Two common situations now, involve "ordinary POTS" versus VOIP.
>>
>> The definition of POTS is here - it's the old copper phone
>> line we had in the 50's, with 4KHz or lower bandwidth.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_old_telephone_service
>>
>> Some telephone companies are eliminating POTS service, in favor of
>> VOIP solutions. There might not even be a customer premise piece
>> of equipment doing the VOIP, so the difference might not even be
>> apparent to the home owner.
>>
>> We can take my house as an example. I still have POTS, plus they
>> added ADSL to the line. I don't own a FAX machine, but if I did,
>> it would work. I can add at least four filters and taps to the
>> line if I want (I own four filters). Only one analog phone can
>> go off-hook at a time, so there is only "one line".
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>> modem ------------
> Computer
>> 4KHz baseband | |
>> ethernet
>> Filter Filter
>> 4KHz or lower 4KHz or lower
>> | |
>> analog phone analog FAX
>> RJ11 connector RJ11 connector
>>
>> In the previous diagram, I would be running a traditional, clunky,
>> standalone FAX machine. No computer involvement in the faxing process
>> in that example.
>>
>> Now, if I wanted, I could use a FAX modem on the computer, like this.
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>> modem ------------
> Computer
>> 4KHz baseband | |
>> ethernet
> |
>> Filter Filter
> USB FAX
>> 4KHz or lower 4KHz or lower
> Modem
>> | |
> |
>> analog phone
> +---------------------------------+
>> RJ11 connector RJ11 connector
>>
>> The previous diagram also works, because of the regular, reliable 4KHz
>> passband.
>>
>> When the telephone company stops supporting POTS, they use VOIP or
>> voice over internet protocol. That can involve the ADSL modem. So
>> only the modem "sees" the phone line, like this. Now, there is
>> no 4KHz analog content at all. Just the modulation above 28KHz for
>> ADSL. The ADSL sees the full spectrum, just as before, because there
>> is no filter in front of the ADSL modem.
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>> modem ------------
> Computer
>>
>> ethernet
>>
>> To make it more transparent as to what is happening, now I add VOIP to
>> the
> picture,
>> and also include a router for more computers. VOIP is "downstream" of
>> the
>> modem, and "upstream" of the router. The reason the first implementations
>> sat upstream of the router, was to make it easier to access all the port
>> numbers used by VOIP protocols (control path and data path). So this
>> diagram,
>> compresses that useless wire in the middle of the picture, to make more
>> room for the other junk.
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45 RJ45 RJ45
>> Telco ------------------ ADSL modem ---- VOIP 2 Port Box ----
> Router ----- Computer
>> | RJ11 |
> ----- Computer
>> | |
>> (4KHz) (4KHz)
>> analog analog
>> phone FAX
>>
>> Now, again, I can replace that clunky, separate "analog FAX" machine,
>> with
>> a FAX modem on the computer. I'll run a line from the second computer,
>> which has a USB FAX or PCMCIA FAX device plugged into it.
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>> Telco ------------------ ADSL modem ---- VOIP 2 Port Box ----
> Router ----- Computer
>> | RJ11 |
> ----- Computer
>> | |
> |
>> (4KHz) (4KHz)
> USB FAX
>> analog |
> Modem
>> phone |
> |
>>
> +----------------------------+
>> RJ11 connector
>>
>> Now, what you're attempting to do, is run "FAX over VOIP". This is not
>> the
> same
>> as running "FAX over 4KHz baseband", as in the first diagram.
>>
>> And that's what you need to research. What impairment does using VOIP
>> to *emulate* an analog phone service cause ? You need to be absolutely
>> certain, you know how your telephone company (or you yourself) have
>> arranged to make that "phone line" you're using. VOIP is a lot different
>> than an old POTS copper line.
>>
>> So it's not really an argument about how sweet a particular
>> brand of FAX modem happens to be. It's an argument about
>> whether the phone line is "plain" or "VOIP" type.
>>
>> In some households, the "VOIP box" is in the pedestal or outside
>> the house, and the home owner may not even be aware they're on
>> VOIP. Depending on when you did your setup (like some of
>> my samples above), you as the home owner may already be
>> aware you're using VOIP, because you actually own a VOIP
>> box sitting in the room with you.
>>
>> Try search terms, such as "FAX over VOIP". One web page,
>> tries to sell you a different IP protocol to send faxes
>> (presumably, with a monthly bill). This web page, talks
>> of dropping the FAX transmission rate, to make it work.
>> The success or failure, might even depend on delay jitter
>> in the VOIP service. Who knows...
>>
>> (site uses a lot of popup crap...)
>> http://askbobrankin.com/fax_over_voip.html
>>
>> "The best tip I can offer is to reduce your fax transmission speed to
>> 9600 bps to maximize VoIP fax success rates. The faster one tries to
>> send a fax, the more likely it is to fail on a VoIP connection."
>>
>> Now, back to the discussion about which FAX modem is superior
>> to which other FAX modem :-)
>>
>> Have fun,
>> Paul
> ================================================== ===============
>
>
> There's also a good explanation and diagram link here...
>
> Modems, Faxes and VoIP
> http://www.almcom.net/Modems_and_VoIP.html
> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>
>
> Now it's crystal clear to me why not to send FAX over IP yet.
> Voice is okay because voice is more forgiving.
>
> The RJ11 connector is connected to the DSL filter,
> which I doubt is VOIP since the old laptop is able to send FAX
> successfully.
>
> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>
>
> Current laptop FAX setup (which fails to send FAX)...
> OS / FAX software: Windows XP / MightyFAX v3.41
> USB Modem: Dell NW147 56K USB Modem, Compatible Model Number: RD02-D400
> [same for Rosewill RNX-56USB and TRENDnet
> TFM-561U]
>
>
>> Paul
>

If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference between success
vs. failure?

Paul

July 15th 15, 03:44 AM

Adam wrote:

>
> If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference between success
> vs. failure?

This is a VOIP problem. The line quality ends up being not
as good as conventional POTS. And VOIP is designed to be
compatible with POTS, where the VOIP breaks into the POTS
network. What they didn't get right, is carrying the FAX
tones. FAX is more demanding that deciphering the human voice.

And someone wrote a nice doc for us, to explain where they
got it wrong. It's worse than I suspected.

http://hylafax.sourceforge.net/docs/fax-over-voip.pdf

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 15th 15, 07:30 AM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>
>>
>> If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference between
>> success vs. failure?
>
> This is a VOIP problem. The line quality ends up being not
> as good as conventional POTS. And VOIP is designed to be
> compatible with POTS, where the VOIP breaks into the POTS
> network. What they didn't get right, is carrying the FAX
> tones. FAX is more demanding that deciphering the human voice.
>
> And someone wrote a nice doc for us, to explain where they
> got it wrong. It's worse than I suspected.
>
> http://hylafax.sourceforge.net/docs/fax-over-voip.pdf
>
> Paul

If DSL+filter is VOIP, then I don't understand why the following works...

Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax

Paul

July 15th 15, 09:26 AM

Adam wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>
>>> If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference between
>>> success vs. failure?
>> This is a VOIP problem. The line quality ends up being not
>> as good as conventional POTS. And VOIP is designed to be
>> compatible with POTS, where the VOIP breaks into the POTS
>> network. What they didn't get right, is carrying the FAX
>> tones. FAX is more demanding that deciphering the human voice.
>>
>> And someone wrote a nice doc for us, to explain where they
>> got it wrong. It's worse than I suspected.
>>
>> http://hylafax.sourceforge.net/docs/fax-over-voip.pdf
>>
>> Paul
>
>
> If DSL+filter is VOIP, then I don't understand why the following works...
>
> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>
>

This first one is my setup. I still get regular phone
service. If, instead of a phone, I connect the 56K dialup
modem, it connects at about 43K and it works. I haven't
used Freenet dialup in some time.

------+------- filter ----- phone (analog, i.e. POTS)
|
+---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff

This is the other way of doing it. This is popular in some
areas, as the phone company divests itself of analog phone
service. The "dry line", no longer processes phone signals.
There is no phone service on the line.

------+------- filter -----X "dry line", no phone service, no dial tone
|
+---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
| |
VOIP1 VOIP2
| |
Analog Analog
Phone FAX machine

Customers using this second setup, are given boxes with
two RJ-11 jacks. Those are VOIP connections. The FAX machine
used in the second picture, should be set to 9600, to try to
get it to work.

As for the location of the VOIP jacks, the digital connection
tends to be "early" in the setup, and before the regular
router (where ever it is located). VOIP has control ports
and data path ports, and is a complicated protocol (because
it comes from the phone company). Because of the port numbers
and ranges it uses, it's just easier to place it before
the router. Even if the router function is inside the box,
and the ADSL thing is a modem/router.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 15th 15, 01:12 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>> If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference between
>>>> success vs. failure?
>>> This is a VOIP problem. The line quality ends up being not
>>> as good as conventional POTS. And VOIP is designed to be
>>> compatible with POTS, where the VOIP breaks into the POTS
>>> network. What they didn't get right, is carrying the FAX
>>> tones. FAX is more demanding that deciphering the human voice.
>>>
>>> And someone wrote a nice doc for us, to explain where they
>>> got it wrong. It's worse than I suspected.
>>>
>>> http://hylafax.sourceforge.net/docs/fax-over-voip.pdf
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>>
>> If DSL+filter is VOIP, then I don't understand why the following works...
>>
>> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
>> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>>
>
> This first one is my setup. I still get regular phone
> service. If, instead of a phone, I connect the 56K dialup
> modem, it connects at about 43K and it works. I haven't
> used Freenet dialup in some time.
>
> ------+------- filter ----- phone (analog, i.e. POTS)
> |
> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>

This is my FAX setup. The FAX RJ11 only plugs into the filter.

In this diagram...
http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
My FAX setup looks like Grandma's setup, the DSL+filter side.

> This is the other way of doing it. This is popular in some
> areas, as the phone company divests itself of analog phone
> service. The "dry line", no longer processes phone signals.
> There is no phone service on the line.
>
> ------+------- filter -----X "dry line", no phone service, no dial tone
> |
> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
> | |
> VOIP1 VOIP2
> | |
> Analog Analog
> Phone FAX machine
>

This is FAX over IP and is "not" my FAX setup.
In my case, my VOIP adapter connects to a router,
which connects to the DSL modem.

In this diagram...
http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
My VOIP setup looks like Geek's setup.

> Customers using this second setup, are given boxes with
> two RJ-11 jacks. Those are VOIP connections. The FAX machine
> used in the second picture, should be set to 9600, to try to
> get it to work.
>
> As for the location of the VOIP jacks, the digital connection
> tends to be "early" in the setup, and before the regular
> router (where ever it is located). VOIP has control ports
> and data path ports, and is a complicated protocol (because
> it comes from the phone company). Because of the port numbers
> and ranges it uses, it's just easier to place it before
> the router. Even if the router function is inside the box,
> and the ADSL thing is a modem/router.
>
> Paul

Paul

July 15th 15, 08:06 PM

Adam wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference between
>>>>> success vs. failure?
>>>> This is a VOIP problem. The line quality ends up being not
>>>> as good as conventional POTS. And VOIP is designed to be
>>>> compatible with POTS, where the VOIP breaks into the POTS
>>>> network. What they didn't get right, is carrying the FAX
>>>> tones. FAX is more demanding that deciphering the human voice.
>>>>
>>>> And someone wrote a nice doc for us, to explain where they
>>>> got it wrong. It's worse than I suspected.
>>>>
>>>> http://hylafax.sourceforge.net/docs/fax-over-voip.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> If DSL+filter is VOIP, then I don't understand why the following works...
>>>
>>> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
>>> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
>>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>>>
>> This first one is my setup. I still get regular phone
>> service. If, instead of a phone, I connect the 56K dialup
>> modem, it connects at about 43K and it works. I haven't
>> used Freenet dialup in some time.
>>
>> ------+------- filter ----- phone (analog, i.e. POTS)
>> |
>> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>>
>
> This is my FAX setup. The FAX RJ11 only plugs into the filter.
>
> In this diagram...
> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
> My FAX setup looks like Grandma's setup, the DSL+filter side.
>
>
>> This is the other way of doing it. This is popular in some
>> areas, as the phone company divests itself of analog phone
>> service. The "dry line", no longer processes phone signals.
>> There is no phone service on the line.
>>
>> ------+------- filter -----X "dry line", no phone service, no dial tone
>> |
>> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>> | |
>> VOIP1 VOIP2
>> | |
>> Analog Analog
>> Phone FAX machine
>>
>
> This is FAX over IP and is "not" my FAX setup.
> In my case, my VOIP adapter connects to a router,
> which connects to the DSL modem.
>
> In this diagram...
> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
> My VOIP setup looks like Geek's setup.
>
>
>> Customers using this second setup, are given boxes with
>> two RJ-11 jacks. Those are VOIP connections. The FAX machine
>> used in the second picture, should be set to 9600, to try to
>> get it to work.
>>
>> As for the location of the VOIP jacks, the digital connection
>> tends to be "early" in the setup, and before the regular
>> router (where ever it is located). VOIP has control ports
>> and data path ports, and is a complicated protocol (because
>> it comes from the phone company). Because of the port numbers
>> and ranges it uses, it's just easier to place it before
>> the router. Even if the router function is inside the box,
>> and the ADSL thing is a modem/router.
>>
>> Paul
>
>

So you're telling me, you pay for regular POTS phone
service, just to send FAX ?

And also have VOIP for voice calls ?

I presume the idea is, you wanted at least two lines,
a high quality one for traditional FAX, plus VOIP
for voice calls.

It's possible, without your knowledge, the POTS
line is being converted to digital somewhere (in the
crappy VOIP sense, rather than normal uncompressed
digitization). But I don't know how you'd go about
proving that.

It could be, that the recipients FAX machine is
connected to VOIP.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 15th 15, 08:38 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference between
>>>>>> success vs. failure?
>>>>> This is a VOIP problem. The line quality ends up being not
>>>>> as good as conventional POTS. And VOIP is designed to be
>>>>> compatible with POTS, where the VOIP breaks into the POTS
>>>>> network. What they didn't get right, is carrying the FAX
>>>>> tones. FAX is more demanding that deciphering the human voice.
>>>>>
>>>>> And someone wrote a nice doc for us, to explain where they
>>>>> got it wrong. It's worse than I suspected.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://hylafax.sourceforge.net/docs/fax-over-voip.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> If DSL+filter is VOIP, then I don't understand why the following
>>>> works...
>>>>
>>>> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
>>>> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
>>>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>>>>
>>> This first one is my setup. I still get regular phone
>>> service. If, instead of a phone, I connect the 56K dialup
>>> modem, it connects at about 43K and it works. I haven't
>>> used Freenet dialup in some time.
>>>
>>> ------+------- filter ----- phone (analog, i.e. POTS)
>>> |
>>> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>>>
>>
>> This is my FAX setup. The FAX RJ11 only plugs into the filter.
>>
>> In this diagram...
>> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>> My FAX setup looks like Grandma's setup, the DSL+filter side.
>>
>>
>>> This is the other way of doing it. This is popular in some
>>> areas, as the phone company divests itself of analog phone
>>> service. The "dry line", no longer processes phone signals.
>>> There is no phone service on the line.
>>>
>>> ------+------- filter -----X "dry line", no phone service, no dial
>>> tone
>>> |
>>> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>>> | |
>>> VOIP1 VOIP2
>>> | |
>>> Analog Analog
>>> Phone FAX machine
>>>
>>
>> This is FAX over IP and is "not" my FAX setup.
>> In my case, my VOIP adapter connects to a router,
>> which connects to the DSL modem.
>>
>> In this diagram...
>> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>> My VOIP setup looks like Geek's setup.
>>
>>
>>> Customers using this second setup, are given boxes with
>>> two RJ-11 jacks. Those are VOIP connections. The FAX machine
>>> used in the second picture, should be set to 9600, to try to
>>> get it to work.
>>>
>>> As for the location of the VOIP jacks, the digital connection
>>> tends to be "early" in the setup, and before the regular
>>> router (where ever it is located). VOIP has control ports
>>> and data path ports, and is a complicated protocol (because
>>> it comes from the phone company). Because of the port numbers
>>> and ranges it uses, it's just easier to place it before
>>> the router. Even if the router function is inside the box,
>>> and the ADSL thing is a modem/router.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>
> So you're telling me, you pay for regular POTS phone
> service, just to send FAX ?
>

I have had this setup since FOREVER. And,
have been working toward a "dry line" setup,
which AT&T seems to be fighting against with
wording such as...
"oh if you disconnect POTS phone service, you may lose internet as well".

> And also have VOIP for voice calls ?
>

I just recently added a new VOIP adapter for voice calls. And,
was hoping to be able to send FAX via the VOIP adapter until
I learned that FAX over IP won't work.

So then, I moved the USB FAX modem over to POTS,
thinking that it should work but nope.

> I presume the idea is, you wanted at least two lines,
> a high quality one for traditional FAX, plus VOIP
> for voice calls.
>

No, it's a work in progress. I'm moving toward a "dry line" setup.

But, while I still have POTS phone service,
I thought I'd at least test out the USB FAX modem.

> It's possible, without your knowledge, the POTS
> line is being converted to digital somewhere (in the
> crappy VOIP sense, rather than normal uncompressed
> digitization). But I don't know how you'd go about
> proving that.
>
> It could be, that the recipients FAX machine is
> connected to VOIP.
>

Which still doesn't explain...

If DSL+filter is VOIP (this scenario), then I don't understand why the
following works...

Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax

> Paul

Paul

July 15th 15, 09:29 PM

Adam wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference between
>>>>>>> success vs. failure?
>>>>>> This is a VOIP problem. The line quality ends up being not
>>>>>> as good as conventional POTS. And VOIP is designed to be
>>>>>> compatible with POTS, where the VOIP breaks into the POTS
>>>>>> network. What they didn't get right, is carrying the FAX
>>>>>> tones. FAX is more demanding that deciphering the human voice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And someone wrote a nice doc for us, to explain where they
>>>>>> got it wrong. It's worse than I suspected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://hylafax.sourceforge.net/docs/fax-over-voip.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>> If DSL+filter is VOIP, then I don't understand why the following
>>>>> works...
>>>>>
>>>>> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
>>>>> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
>>>>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>>>>>
>>>> This first one is my setup. I still get regular phone
>>>> service. If, instead of a phone, I connect the 56K dialup
>>>> modem, it connects at about 43K and it works. I haven't
>>>> used Freenet dialup in some time.
>>>>
>>>> ------+------- filter ----- phone (analog, i.e. POTS)
>>>> |
>>>> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>>>>
>>> This is my FAX setup. The FAX RJ11 only plugs into the filter.
>>>
>>> In this diagram...
>>> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>>> My FAX setup looks like Grandma's setup, the DSL+filter side.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is the other way of doing it. This is popular in some
>>>> areas, as the phone company divests itself of analog phone
>>>> service. The "dry line", no longer processes phone signals.
>>>> There is no phone service on the line.
>>>>
>>>> ------+------- filter -----X "dry line", no phone service, no dial
>>>> tone
>>>> |
>>>> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>>>> | |
>>>> VOIP1 VOIP2
>>>> | |
>>>> Analog Analog
>>>> Phone FAX machine
>>>>
>>> This is FAX over IP and is "not" my FAX setup.
>>> In my case, my VOIP adapter connects to a router,
>>> which connects to the DSL modem.
>>>
>>> In this diagram...
>>> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>>> My VOIP setup looks like Geek's setup.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Customers using this second setup, are given boxes with
>>>> two RJ-11 jacks. Those are VOIP connections. The FAX machine
>>>> used in the second picture, should be set to 9600, to try to
>>>> get it to work.
>>>>
>>>> As for the location of the VOIP jacks, the digital connection
>>>> tends to be "early" in the setup, and before the regular
>>>> router (where ever it is located). VOIP has control ports
>>>> and data path ports, and is a complicated protocol (because
>>>> it comes from the phone company). Because of the port numbers
>>>> and ranges it uses, it's just easier to place it before
>>>> the router. Even if the router function is inside the box,
>>>> and the ADSL thing is a modem/router.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>> So you're telling me, you pay for regular POTS phone
>> service, just to send FAX ?
>>
>
> I have had this setup since FOREVER. And,
> have been working toward a "dry line" setup,
> which AT&T seems to be fighting against with
> wording such as...
> "oh if you disconnect POTS phone service, you may lose internet as well".
>
>
>> And also have VOIP for voice calls ?
>>
>
> I just recently added a new VOIP adapter for voice calls. And,
> was hoping to be able to send FAX via the VOIP adapter until
> I learned that FAX over IP won't work.
>
> So then, I moved the USB FAX modem over to POTS,
> thinking that it should work but nope.
>
>
>> I presume the idea is, you wanted at least two lines,
>> a high quality one for traditional FAX, plus VOIP
>> for voice calls.
>>
>
> No, it's a work in progress. I'm moving toward a "dry line" setup.
>
> But, while I still have POTS phone service,
> I thought I'd at least test out the USB FAX modem.
>
>
>> It's possible, without your knowledge, the POTS
>> line is being converted to digital somewhere (in the
>> crappy VOIP sense, rather than normal uncompressed
>> digitization). But I don't know how you'd go about
>> proving that.
>>
>> It could be, that the recipients FAX machine is
>> connected to VOIP.
>>
>
> Which still doesn't explain...
>
> If DSL+filter is VOIP (this scenario), then I don't understand why the
> following works...
>
> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>
>
>> Paul
>
>

Maybe the alternative solution, uses slightly different
protocol (will do more retries when there are errors) ?
The signals themselves should be the same (both make
the same tones for 9600 or 14400 baud FAX).

You could record the audio signal being sent, but
I don't know if you can still get (safe) hardware
to connect to the sound card on your computer.

https://web.archive.org/web/20040215233314/http://www.hut.fi/Misc/Electronics/circuits/teleinterface.html

Some of the Radio Shack ones, don't use transformer
isolation, and are not compatible with the computer
sound card. They're intended for recording with
a battery operated cassette recorder (which floats).

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 15th 15, 11:12 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If PC Card Modem is parallel, could that make the difference
>>>>>>>> between success vs. failure?
>>>>>>> This is a VOIP problem. The line quality ends up being not
>>>>>>> as good as conventional POTS. And VOIP is designed to be
>>>>>>> compatible with POTS, where the VOIP breaks into the POTS
>>>>>>> network. What they didn't get right, is carrying the FAX
>>>>>>> tones. FAX is more demanding that deciphering the human voice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And someone wrote a nice doc for us, to explain where they
>>>>>>> got it wrong. It's worse than I suspected.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://hylafax.sourceforge.net/docs/fax-over-voip.pdf
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> If DSL+filter is VOIP, then I don't understand why the following
>>>>>> works...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
>>>>>> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
>>>>>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>>>>>>
>>>>> This first one is my setup. I still get regular phone
>>>>> service. If, instead of a phone, I connect the 56K dialup
>>>>> modem, it connects at about 43K and it works. I haven't
>>>>> used Freenet dialup in some time.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------+------- filter ----- phone (analog, i.e. POTS)
>>>>> |
>>>>> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>>>>>
>>>> This is my FAX setup. The FAX RJ11 only plugs into the filter.
>>>>
>>>> In this diagram...
>>>> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>>>> My FAX setup looks like Grandma's setup, the DSL+filter side.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> This is the other way of doing it. This is popular in some
>>>>> areas, as the phone company divests itself of analog phone
>>>>> service. The "dry line", no longer processes phone signals.
>>>>> There is no phone service on the line.
>>>>>
>>>>> ------+------- filter -----X "dry line", no phone service, no dial
>>>>> tone
>>>>> |
>>>>> +---- ADSL modem ---- rest_of_networking_stuff
>>>>> | |
>>>>> VOIP1 VOIP2
>>>>> | |
>>>>> Analog Analog
>>>>> Phone FAX machine
>>>>>
>>>> This is FAX over IP and is "not" my FAX setup.
>>>> In my case, my VOIP adapter connects to a router,
>>>> which connects to the DSL modem.
>>>>
>>>> In this diagram...
>>>> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>>>> My VOIP setup looks like Geek's setup.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Customers using this second setup, are given boxes with
>>>>> two RJ-11 jacks. Those are VOIP connections. The FAX machine
>>>>> used in the second picture, should be set to 9600, to try to
>>>>> get it to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the location of the VOIP jacks, the digital connection
>>>>> tends to be "early" in the setup, and before the regular
>>>>> router (where ever it is located). VOIP has control ports
>>>>> and data path ports, and is a complicated protocol (because
>>>>> it comes from the phone company). Because of the port numbers
>>>>> and ranges it uses, it's just easier to place it before
>>>>> the router. Even if the router function is inside the box,
>>>>> and the ADSL thing is a modem/router.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>> So you're telling me, you pay for regular POTS phone
>>> service, just to send FAX ?
>>>
>>
>> I have had this setup since FOREVER. And,
>> have been working toward a "dry line" setup,
>> which AT&T seems to be fighting against with
>> wording such as...
>> "oh if you disconnect POTS phone service, you may lose internet as well".
>>
>>
>>> And also have VOIP for voice calls ?
>>>
>>
>> I just recently added a new VOIP adapter for voice calls. And,
>> was hoping to be able to send FAX via the VOIP adapter until
>> I learned that FAX over IP won't work.
>>
>> So then, I moved the USB FAX modem over to POTS,
>> thinking that it should work but nope.
>>
>>
>>> I presume the idea is, you wanted at least two lines,
>>> a high quality one for traditional FAX, plus VOIP
>>> for voice calls.
>>>
>>
>> No, it's a work in progress. I'm moving toward a "dry line" setup.
>>
>> But, while I still have POTS phone service,
>> I thought I'd at least test out the USB FAX modem.
>>
>>
>>> It's possible, without your knowledge, the POTS
>>> line is being converted to digital somewhere (in the
>>> crappy VOIP sense, rather than normal uncompressed
>>> digitization). But I don't know how you'd go about
>>> proving that.
>>>
>>> It could be, that the recipients FAX machine is
>>> connected to VOIP.
>>>
>>
>> Which still doesn't explain...
>>
>> If DSL+filter is VOIP (this scenario), then I don't understand why the
>> following works...
>>
>> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
>> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>>
>>
>>> Paul
>>
>
> Maybe the alternative solution, uses slightly different
> protocol (will do more retries when there are errors) ?
> The signals themselves should be the same (both make
> the same tones for 9600 or 14400 baud FAX).
>

Not sure what you mean by "alternative solution".

Based on MightyFAX status, it seems like it gets connection params from
the receiver before sending. There's some sort of handshaking.

> You could record the audio signal being sent, but
> I don't know if you can still get (safe) hardware
> to connect to the sound card on your computer.
>

Since you mention "audio signal", I've noticed that
these Conexant USB FAX modems have much weaker tones compared to
the PC Card FAX modem on the old laptop that
is able to send FAX.

Hmmm...wonder if the weaker audio signals may have something to do with
not being able to send FAX successfully.

> https://web.archive.org/web/20040215233314/http://www.hut.fi/Misc/Electronics/circuits/teleinterface.html
>
> Some of the Radio Shack ones, don't use transformer
> isolation, and are not compatible with the computer
> sound card. They're intended for recording with
> a battery operated cassette recorder (which floats).
>
> Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 16th 15, 05:25 AM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Barry Schwarz" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:38:28 -0700, "Adam" > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where can I download WinXP drivers for the following...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dell NW147 56K External USB Modem, Compatible Model Number: RD02-D400
>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Dell-NW147-External-Compatible-Number/dp/B001L7IVCK
>>>>> Have you tried the Dell website?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Remove del for email
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, hope this is the right one.
>>>>
>>>> Conexant D400 External USB 56K Modem Driver for WinXP
>>>> http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/Drivers/DriversDetails?driverId=JC1CR
>>>>
>>>
>>> Driver was successfully installed.
>>>
>>> However, I can't seem to send fax using MightyFAX v3.41 via DSL with
>>> filter.
>>> Sending a minimal cover page takes FOREVER.
>>> Same results with other 56k USB modems as well. Why?
>>>
>>> Is it the software/MightyFAX? But an older MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10 is
>>> able to send fax using a PC Card 56k modem in an old laptop running
>>> Win98SE via DSL with filter. What gives?
>>>
>>
>> Simple. Change FAX setting from 14400 to 9600.
>>
>
> Thanks, (Guru Paul) I took a snapshot of the "Send Fax" dialog that
> shows the Connect BPS to be 9600.
> I can upload the snapshot but to which website?
>
>
>> VOIP does not typically handle FAX tones well, and
>> so dropping to 9600 baud FAX mode may help.
>>
>
> Yes, thanks for your detailed diagram and explanation posted to
> the following thread..."how to connect PC Card Modem to laptop - please
> help"
> ================================================== ===============
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>> > "Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >> "ED" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>> >>> ...
>> >>>> Operating System: Windows XP
>> >>>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My old laptop had a couple of PC Card slots,
>> >>>> one of which was used for a PC Card Modem.
>> >>>> Now, I am interested in connecting this PC Card Modem to
>> >>>> my new Windows XP laptop, which does not have PC Card slots.
>> >>>> So, I am looking for a good PC Card Reader. Any suggestions?
>> >>>> Or, is there a better approach?
>> >>>>
>> >>> One of the following should suit your purpose:
>> >>>
>> >
> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH
>> >> &Description=usb+modem+56k
>> >> Thanks!!
>> >>
>> >> Unless I hear otherwise, I guess I'll try the following ...
>> >> Rosewill RNX-56USB Conexant Hardware Based 56Kbps USB (Plug & Play)
>> >> V.92
>> >> Data/Fax/TAM Modem
>> >>
>> >
>> > It looks like I may need a PCMCIA USB adapter after all in order to
>> > salvage my PC Card Fax Modem (which works with DSL) after all.
>> > The problem is that many fax modems will not work with DSL.
>> > And, Rosewill Tech Support just confirmed this.
>> >
>> > Anyone with DSL using a 56k fax modem to send fax? If so,
>> > what's the make/model of your 56k fax modem?
>>
>> [Note - copy and paste the below into Notepad or equivalent,
>> and use Courier font, if you want to view the diagrams as I
>> drew them.]
>>
>> I think before running off to the store, I'd slow down a bit first.
>>
>> There are many kinds of phone lines, but some are obscure enough
>> we don't have to worry about them.
>>
>> Two common situations now, involve "ordinary POTS" versus VOIP.
>>
>> The definition of POTS is here - it's the old copper phone
>> line we had in the 50's, with 4KHz or lower bandwidth.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_old_telephone_service
>>
>> Some telephone companies are eliminating POTS service, in favor of
>> VOIP solutions. There might not even be a customer premise piece
>> of equipment doing the VOIP, so the difference might not even be
>> apparent to the home owner.
>>
>> We can take my house as an example. I still have POTS, plus they
>> added ADSL to the line. I don't own a FAX machine, but if I did,
>> it would work. I can add at least four filters and taps to the
>> line if I want (I own four filters). Only one analog phone can
>> go off-hook at a time, so there is only "one line".
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>> modem ------------
> Computer
>> 4KHz baseband | |
>> ethernet
>> Filter Filter
>> 4KHz or lower 4KHz or lower
>> | |
>> analog phone analog FAX
>> RJ11 connector RJ11 connector
>>
>> In the previous diagram, I would be running a traditional, clunky,
>> standalone FAX machine. No computer involvement in the faxing process
>> in that example.
>>
>> Now, if I wanted, I could use a FAX modem on the computer, like this.
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>> modem ------------
> Computer
>> 4KHz baseband | |
>> ethernet
> |
>> Filter Filter
> USB FAX
>> 4KHz or lower 4KHz or lower
> Modem
>> | |
> |
>> analog phone
> +---------------------------------+
>> RJ11 connector RJ11 connector
>>
>> The previous diagram also works, because of the regular, reliable 4KHz
>> passband.
>>
>> When the telephone company stops supporting POTS, they use VOIP or
>> voice over internet protocol. That can involve the ADSL modem. So
>> only the modem "sees" the phone line, like this. Now, there is
>> no 4KHz analog content at all. Just the modulation above 28KHz for
>> ADSL. The ADSL sees the full spectrum, just as before, because there
>> is no filter in front of the ADSL modem.
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>> modem ------------
> Computer
>>
>> ethernet
>>
>> To make it more transparent as to what is happening, now I add VOIP to
>> the
> picture,
>> and also include a router for more computers. VOIP is "downstream" of
>> the
>> modem, and "upstream" of the router. The reason the first implementations
>> sat upstream of the router, was to make it easier to access all the port
>> numbers used by VOIP protocols (control path and data path). So this
>> diagram,
>> compresses that useless wire in the middle of the picture, to make more
>> room for the other junk.
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45 RJ45 RJ45
>> Telco ------------------ ADSL modem ---- VOIP 2 Port Box ----
> Router ----- Computer
>> | RJ11 |
> ----- Computer
>> | |
>> (4KHz) (4KHz)
>> analog analog
>> phone FAX
>>
>> Now, again, I can replace that clunky, separate "analog FAX" machine,
>> with
>> a FAX modem on the computer. I'll run a line from the second computer,
>> which has a USB FAX or PCMCIA FAX device plugged into it.
>>
>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>> Telco ------------------ ADSL modem ---- VOIP 2 Port Box ----
> Router ----- Computer
>> | RJ11 |
> ----- Computer
>> | |
> |
>> (4KHz) (4KHz)
> USB FAX
>> analog |
> Modem
>> phone |
> |
>>
> +----------------------------+
>> RJ11 connector
>>
>> Now, what you're attempting to do, is run "FAX over VOIP". This is not
>> the
> same
>> as running "FAX over 4KHz baseband", as in the first diagram.
>>
>> And that's what you need to research. What impairment does using VOIP
>> to *emulate* an analog phone service cause ? You need to be absolutely
>> certain, you know how your telephone company (or you yourself) have
>> arranged to make that "phone line" you're using. VOIP is a lot different
>> than an old POTS copper line.
>>
>> So it's not really an argument about how sweet a particular
>> brand of FAX modem happens to be. It's an argument about
>> whether the phone line is "plain" or "VOIP" type.
>>
>> In some households, the "VOIP box" is in the pedestal or outside
>> the house, and the home owner may not even be aware they're on
>> VOIP. Depending on when you did your setup (like some of
>> my samples above), you as the home owner may already be
>> aware you're using VOIP, because you actually own a VOIP
>> box sitting in the room with you.
>>
>> Try search terms, such as "FAX over VOIP". One web page,
>> tries to sell you a different IP protocol to send faxes
>> (presumably, with a monthly bill). This web page, talks
>> of dropping the FAX transmission rate, to make it work.
>> The success or failure, might even depend on delay jitter
>> in the VOIP service. Who knows...
>>
>> (site uses a lot of popup crap...)
>> http://askbobrankin.com/fax_over_voip.html
>>
>> "The best tip I can offer is to reduce your fax transmission speed to
>> 9600 bps to maximize VoIP fax success rates. The faster one tries to
>> send a fax, the more likely it is to fail on a VoIP connection."
>>
>> Now, back to the discussion about which FAX modem is superior
>> to which other FAX modem :-)
>>
>> Have fun,
>> Paul
> ================================================== ===============
>
>
> There's also a good explanation and diagram link here...
>
> Modems, Faxes and VoIP
> http://www.almcom.net/Modems_and_VoIP.html
> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>
>
> Now it's crystal clear to me why not to send FAX over IP yet.
> Voice is okay because voice is more forgiving.
>
> The RJ11 connector is connected to the DSL filter,
> which I doubt is VOIP since the old laptop is able to send FAX
> successfully.
>
> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>
>
> Current laptop FAX setup (which fails to send FAX)...
> OS / FAX software: Windows XP / MightyFAX v3.41
> USB Modem: Dell NW147 56K USB Modem, Compatible Model Number: RD02-D400
> [same for Rosewill RNX-56USB and TRENDnet
> TFM-561U]
>

FYI, I don't know what happened but I was able to
send fax successfully using the Dell NW147 56K USB Modem "once",
which is a good sign. But, attempting to
send fax again immediately after the successful send failed.
Maybe the first send was successful because the USB FAX modem was
powered ON (connected) just before the send? Nope.

One thing I don't like about these Conexant USB FAX modems is
the data light stays stuck ON (even after MightyFAX has closed).

I tried switching the phone cord. Same results. No better luck.

>
>> Paul
>

Adam[_5_]

July 16th 15, 06:27 AM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> "Barry Schwarz" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Jul 2015 21:38:28 -0700, "Adam" >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where can I download WinXP drivers for the following...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dell NW147 56K External USB Modem, Compatible Model Number:
>>>>>>> RD02-D400
>>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Dell-NW147-External-Compatible-Number/dp/B001L7IVCK
>>>>>> Have you tried the Dell website?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Remove del for email
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, hope this is the right one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Conexant D400 External USB 56K Modem Driver for WinXP
>>>>> http://www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/Drivers/DriversDetails?driverId=JC1CR
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Driver was successfully installed.
>>>>
>>>> However, I can't seem to send fax using MightyFAX v3.41 via DSL with
>>>> filter.
>>>> Sending a minimal cover page takes FOREVER.
>>>> Same results with other 56k USB modems as well. Why?
>>>>
>>>> Is it the software/MightyFAX? But an older MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10 is
>>>> able to send fax using a PC Card 56k modem in an old laptop running
>>>> Win98SE via DSL with filter. What gives?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Simple. Change FAX setting from 14400 to 9600.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, (Guru Paul) I took a snapshot of the "Send Fax" dialog that
>> shows the Connect BPS to be 9600.
>> I can upload the snapshot but to which website?
>>
>>
>>> VOIP does not typically handle FAX tones well, and
>>> so dropping to 9600 baud FAX mode may help.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, thanks for your detailed diagram and explanation posted to
>> the following thread..."how to connect PC Card Modem to laptop - please
>> help"
>> ================================================== ===============
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>> > "Adam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >> "ED" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> >>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>>> >>> ...
>>> >>>> Operating System: Windows XP
>>> >>>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> My old laptop had a couple of PC Card slots,
>>> >>>> one of which was used for a PC Card Modem.
>>> >>>> Now, I am interested in connecting this PC Card Modem to
>>> >>>> my new Windows XP laptop, which does not have PC Card slots.
>>> >>>> So, I am looking for a good PC Card Reader. Any suggestions?
>>> >>>> Or, is there a better approach?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>> One of the following should suit your purpose:
>>> >>>
>>> >
>> http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Order=BESTMATCH
>>> >> &Description=usb+modem+56k
>>> >> Thanks!!
>>> >>
>>> >> Unless I hear otherwise, I guess I'll try the following ...
>>> >> Rosewill RNX-56USB Conexant Hardware Based 56Kbps USB (Plug & Play)
>>> >> V.92
>>> >> Data/Fax/TAM Modem
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > It looks like I may need a PCMCIA USB adapter after all in order to
>>> > salvage my PC Card Fax Modem (which works with DSL) after all.
>>> > The problem is that many fax modems will not work with DSL.
>>> > And, Rosewill Tech Support just confirmed this.
>>> >
>>> > Anyone with DSL using a 56k fax modem to send fax? If so,
>>> > what's the make/model of your 56k fax modem?
>>>
>>> [Note - copy and paste the below into Notepad or equivalent,
>>> and use Courier font, if you want to view the diagrams as I
>>> drew them.]
>>>
>>> I think before running off to the store, I'd slow down a bit first.
>>>
>>> There are many kinds of phone lines, but some are obscure enough
>>> we don't have to worry about them.
>>>
>>> Two common situations now, involve "ordinary POTS" versus VOIP.
>>>
>>> The definition of POTS is here - it's the old copper phone
>>> line we had in the 50's, with 4KHz or lower bandwidth.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_old_telephone_service
>>>
>>> Some telephone companies are eliminating POTS service, in favor of
>>> VOIP solutions. There might not even be a customer premise piece
>>> of equipment doing the VOIP, so the difference might not even be
>>> apparent to the home owner.
>>>
>>> We can take my house as an example. I still have POTS, plus they
>>> added ADSL to the line. I don't own a FAX machine, but if I did,
>>> it would work. I can add at least four filters and taps to the
>>> line if I want (I own four filters). Only one analog phone can
>>> go off-hook at a time, so there is only "one line".
>>>
>>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>>> modem ------------
>> Computer
>>> 4KHz baseband | | ethernet
>>> Filter Filter
>>> 4KHz or lower 4KHz or lower
>>> | |
>>> analog phone analog FAX
>>> RJ11 connector RJ11 connector
>>>
>>> In the previous diagram, I would be running a traditional, clunky,
>>> standalone FAX machine. No computer involvement in the faxing process
>>> in that example.
>>>
>>> Now, if I wanted, I could use a FAX modem on the computer, like this.
>>>
>>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>>> modem ------------
>> Computer
>>> 4KHz baseband | | ethernet
>> |
>>> Filter Filter
>> USB FAX
>>> 4KHz or lower 4KHz or lower
>> Modem
>>> | |
>> |
>>> analog phone
>> +---------------------------------+
>>> RJ11 connector RJ11 connector
>>>
>>> The previous diagram also works, because of the regular, reliable 4KHz
>>> passband.
>>>
>>> When the telephone company stops supporting POTS, they use VOIP or
>>> voice over internet protocol. That can involve the ADSL modem. So
>>> only the modem "sees" the phone line, like this. Now, there is
>>> no 4KHz analog content at all. Just the modulation above 28KHz for
>>> ADSL. The ADSL sees the full spectrum, just as before, because there
>>> is no filter in front of the ADSL modem.
>>>
>>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>>> Telco --------------------+---------------+----- ADSL
>>> modem ------------
>> Computer
>>>
>>> ethernet
>>>
>>> To make it more transparent as to what is happening, now I add VOIP to
>>> the
>> picture,
>>> and also include a router for more computers. VOIP is "downstream" of
>>> the
>>> modem, and "upstream" of the router. The reason the first
>>> implementations
>>> sat upstream of the router, was to make it easier to access all the port
>>> numbers used by VOIP protocols (control path and data path). So this
>>> diagram,
>>> compresses that useless wire in the middle of the picture, to make more
>>> room for the other junk.
>>>
>>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45 RJ45 RJ45
>>> Telco ------------------ ADSL modem ---- VOIP 2 Port Box ----
>> Router ----- Computer
>>> | RJ11 |
>> ----- Computer
>>> | |
>>> (4KHz) (4KHz)
>>> analog analog
>>> phone FAX
>>>
>>> Now, again, I can replace that clunky, separate "analog FAX" machine,
>>> with
>>> a FAX modem on the computer. I'll run a line from the second computer,
>>> which has a USB FAX or PCMCIA FAX device plugged into it.
>>>
>>> 28KHz-1MHz DSL RJ45
>>> Telco ------------------ ADSL modem ---- VOIP 2 Port Box ----
>> Router ----- Computer
>>> | RJ11 |
>> ----- Computer
>>> | |
>> |
>>> (4KHz) (4KHz)
>> USB FAX
>>> analog |
>> Modem
>>> phone |
>> |
>>>
>> +----------------------------+
>>> RJ11 connector
>>>
>>> Now, what you're attempting to do, is run "FAX over VOIP". This is not
>>> the
>> same
>>> as running "FAX over 4KHz baseband", as in the first diagram.
>>>
>>> And that's what you need to research. What impairment does using VOIP
>>> to *emulate* an analog phone service cause ? You need to be absolutely
>>> certain, you know how your telephone company (or you yourself) have
>>> arranged to make that "phone line" you're using. VOIP is a lot different
>>> than an old POTS copper line.
>>>
>>> So it's not really an argument about how sweet a particular
>>> brand of FAX modem happens to be. It's an argument about
>>> whether the phone line is "plain" or "VOIP" type.
>>>
>>> In some households, the "VOIP box" is in the pedestal or outside
>>> the house, and the home owner may not even be aware they're on
>>> VOIP. Depending on when you did your setup (like some of
>>> my samples above), you as the home owner may already be
>>> aware you're using VOIP, because you actually own a VOIP
>>> box sitting in the room with you.
>>>
>>> Try search terms, such as "FAX over VOIP". One web page,
>>> tries to sell you a different IP protocol to send faxes
>>> (presumably, with a monthly bill). This web page, talks
>>> of dropping the FAX transmission rate, to make it work.
>>> The success or failure, might even depend on delay jitter
>>> in the VOIP service. Who knows...
>>>
>>> (site uses a lot of popup crap...)
>>> http://askbobrankin.com/fax_over_voip.html
>>>
>>> "The best tip I can offer is to reduce your fax transmission speed
>>> to
>>> 9600 bps to maximize VoIP fax success rates. The faster one tries
>>> to
>>> send a fax, the more likely it is to fail on a VoIP connection."
>>>
>>> Now, back to the discussion about which FAX modem is superior
>>> to which other FAX modem :-)
>>>
>>> Have fun,
>>> Paul
>> ================================================== ===============
>>
>>
>> There's also a good explanation and diagram link here...
>>
>> Modems, Faxes and VoIP
>> http://www.almcom.net/Modems_and_VoIP.html
>> http://www.almcom.net/voipandpstn.html
>>
>>
>> Now it's crystal clear to me why not to send FAX over IP yet.
>> Voice is okay because voice is more forgiving.
>>
>> The RJ11 connector is connected to the DSL filter,
>> which I doubt is VOIP since the old laptop is able to send FAX
>> successfully.
>>
>> Old laptop FAX setup (which is able to send FAX)...
>> OS / FAX software: Win98SE / MightyFAX v2.9z Build 10
>> PC Card Modem: Psion Gold Card Global 56k + Fax
>>
>>
>> Current laptop FAX setup (which fails to send FAX)...
>> OS / FAX software: Windows XP / MightyFAX v3.41
>> USB Modem: Dell NW147 56K USB Modem, Compatible Model Number:
>> RD02-D400
>> [same for Rosewill RNX-56USB and TRENDnet
>> TFM-561U]
>>
>
> FYI, I don't know what happened but I was able to
> send fax successfully using the Dell NW147 56K USB Modem "once",
> which is a good sign. But, attempting to
> send fax again immediately after the successful send failed.
> Maybe the first send was successful because the USB FAX modem was
> powered ON (connected) just before the send? Nope.
>
> One thing I don't like about these Conexant USB FAX modems is
> the data light stays stuck ON (even after MightyFAX has closed).
>
> I tried switching the phone cord. Same results. No better luck.
>

FYI, I tried a different toll free number (1-855-330-1239) from
faxtoy.net and am having better luck. But,
still have to physically disconnect/connect the USB FAX modem to
prevent stuck ON data light.

>
>>
>>> Paul
>>
>
>

Paul

July 16th 15, 09:22 AM

Adam wrote:
> "Adam" > wrote in message

>> FYI, I don't know what happened but I was able to
>> send fax successfully using the Dell NW147 56K USB Modem "once",
>> which is a good sign. But, attempting to
>> send fax again immediately after the successful send failed.
>> Maybe the first send was successful because the USB FAX modem was
>> powered ON (connected) just before the send? Nope.
>>
>> One thing I don't like about these Conexant USB FAX modems is
>> the data light stays stuck ON (even after MightyFAX has closed).
>>
>> I tried switching the phone cord. Same results. No better luck.
>>
>
> FYI, I tried a different toll free number (1-855-330-1239) from
> faxtoy.net and am having better luck. But,
> still have to physically disconnect/connect the USB FAX modem to
> prevent stuck ON data light.
>

So the Dell modem doesn't know that the call was completed.
The light stayed on, and because it has done that, it's likely
ignoring new commands. A command such as "ATZ" might reset
the thing, but then again, the FAX protocol on the client
side, may not exactly leave the modem in a state where it
will accept AT commands.

Your "Dell NW147 56K USB Modem RD02-D400" is apparently an ACF
chipset, which was listed as being controller based. So it's not
a WinModem, and does not rely on the system CPU doing DSP. All the
heavy lifting is done by the controller, using firmware stored
inside the thing.

I don't know how such things handle FAXes, and whether
the commands work on a row of pixels at a time,
or the entire sheet is sent via one command.

For controller-based modems, the driver provides
Hayes AT Command Set init strings for doing various things.
And such a driver may work better than installing a
"generic" driver for the modem.

Whereas a WinModem is at the mercy of the quality of the
driver provided. The WinModem driver runs DSP code on the system
CPU in such a case. And the state of those drivers improved
so much, they can actually deliver 1% more data, than a
controller type modem. (Yes, I was shocked, when I did the
experiment, again and again, and the damn WinModem kept
winning.) But you have to find the right driver for that
to happen. For WinModems, having a CD in the retail box
is all-important. A "modem in a bag", with no CD, won't
cut it.

A controller based modem I have here, the CPU inside it runs at
around 90MHz or so. Just to give some idea "what a powerhouse"
it is :-) That's my modem that has its own wall adapter for power.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 16th 15, 10:03 AM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>
>>> FYI, I don't know what happened but I was able to
>>> send fax successfully using the Dell NW147 56K USB Modem "once",
>>> which is a good sign. But, attempting to
>>> send fax again immediately after the successful send failed.
>>> Maybe the first send was successful because the USB FAX modem was
>>> powered ON (connected) just before the send? Nope.
>>>
>>> One thing I don't like about these Conexant USB FAX modems is
>>> the data light stays stuck ON (even after MightyFAX has closed).
>>>
>>> I tried switching the phone cord. Same results. No better luck.
>>>
>>
>> FYI, I tried a different toll free number (1-855-330-1239) from
>> faxtoy.net and am having better luck. But,
>> still have to physically disconnect/connect the USB FAX modem to
>> prevent stuck ON data light.
>>
>
> So the Dell modem doesn't know that the call was completed.
> The light stayed on, and because it has done that, it's likely
> ignoring new commands. A command such as "ATZ" might reset
> the thing, but then again, the FAX protocol on the client
> side, may not exactly leave the modem in a state where it
> will accept AT commands.
>

Yes, both Dell and Rosewill modems don't know that
the send has been canceled by the user (after waiting too long) and
keep sending data, which is why the data light stays lit.
The only way to fix the stuck ON data light is to disconnect the USB modem.

I couldn't find a way to "manually" reset the modem from MightyFAX.

> Your "Dell NW147 56K USB Modem RD02-D400" is apparently an ACF
> chipset, which was listed as being controller based. So it's not
> a WinModem, and does not rely on the system CPU doing DSP. All the
> heavy lifting is done by the controller, using firmware stored
> inside the thing.
>

Yes, netizens suggested Conexant-based modems and
warned against a WinModem.

Conexant-based modems get so HOT after a while that
I don't see how people can use them for extended periods of time,
especially for dial-up internet connection.

> I don't know how such things handle FAXes, and whether
> the commands work on a row of pixels at a time,
> or the entire sheet is sent via one command.
>
> For controller-based modems, the driver provides
> Hayes AT Command Set init strings for doing various things.
> And such a driver may work better than installing a
> "generic" driver for the modem.
>
> Whereas a WinModem is at the mercy of the quality of the
> driver provided. The WinModem driver runs DSP code on the system
> CPU in such a case. And the state of those drivers improved
> so much, they can actually deliver 1% more data, than a
> controller type modem. (Yes, I was shocked, when I did the
> experiment, again and again, and the damn WinModem kept
> winning.) But you have to find the right driver for that
> to happen. For WinModems, having a CD in the retail box
> is all-important. A "modem in a bag", with no CD, won't
> cut it.
>

1% is not very significant, especially for FAX purposes.
Maybe more significant for dial-up internet connection though.

> A controller based modem I have here, the CPU inside it runs at
> around 90MHz or so. Just to give some idea "what a powerhouse"
> it is :-) That's my modem that has its own wall adapter for power.
>
> Paul

Okay, which powerful controller-based modem do you have?

Paul

July 16th 15, 12:50 PM

Adam wrote:

>
> Okay, which powerful controller-based modem do you have?

Mine is a USRobotics 5686.

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/35105687/aphotoalbum/USRobotics5686-03a.jpg

The more recent versions, you can have fun tracking down the
right INF for the AT command set for them.

As for the Winmodem winning, it wasn't the percentage that
was important to me. It was for those people who thought
Winmodem architecture was "always inferior". It turns out
that isn't true. A Winmodem can beat a modem with a
controller in it. I couldn't believe it, which is why
I tested several times to be sure (A/B on the same phone line).

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 16th 15, 01:42 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>
>>
>> Okay, which powerful controller-based modem do you have?
>
> Mine is a USRobotics 5686.
>
> http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/35105687/aphotoalbum/USRobotics5686-03a.jpg
>
> The more recent versions, you can have fun tracking down the
> right INF for the AT command set for them.
>
> As for the Winmodem winning, it wasn't the percentage that
> was important to me. It was for those people who thought
> Winmodem architecture was "always inferior". It turns out
> that isn't true. A Winmodem can beat a modem with a
> controller in it. I couldn't believe it, which is why
> I tested several times to be sure (A/B on the same phone line).
>
> Paul

Well, with CPUs being more and more powerful these days,
it's possible for CPUs to manage more load.

Hey, I was wondering...since the FAX modem takes AT commands,
couldn't I manually send a reset string to it with HyperTerminal or
some app capable of sending AT commands?

Paul

July 16th 15, 02:54 PM

Adam wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Okay, which powerful controller-based modem do you have?
>> Mine is a USRobotics 5686.
>>
>> http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/35105687/aphotoalbum/USRobotics5686-03a.jpg
>>
>> The more recent versions, you can have fun tracking down the
>> right INF for the AT command set for them.
>>
>> As for the Winmodem winning, it wasn't the percentage that
>> was important to me. It was for those people who thought
>> Winmodem architecture was "always inferior". It turns out
>> that isn't true. A Winmodem can beat a modem with a
>> controller in it. I couldn't believe it, which is why
>> I tested several times to be sure (A/B on the same phone line).
>>
>> Paul
>
> Well, with CPUs being more and more powerful these days,
> it's possible for CPUs to manage more load.
>
> Hey, I was wondering...since the FAX modem takes AT commands,
> couldn't I manually send a reset string to it with HyperTerminal or
> some app capable of sending AT commands?

Only one software can "own" a device like that at a time.

You would have to convince your FAX software to "let go",
to be able to use Hyperterm. And I don't know if the
modem has any "modes" it can get into, which prevent
accepting new commands.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 16th 15, 03:39 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, which powerful controller-based modem do you have?
>>> Mine is a USRobotics 5686.
>>>
>>> http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/35105687/aphotoalbum/USRobotics5686-03a.jpg
>>>
>>> The more recent versions, you can have fun tracking down the
>>> right INF for the AT command set for them.
>>>
>>> As for the Winmodem winning, it wasn't the percentage that
>>> was important to me. It was for those people who thought
>>> Winmodem architecture was "always inferior". It turns out
>>> that isn't true. A Winmodem can beat a modem with a
>>> controller in it. I couldn't believe it, which is why
>>> I tested several times to be sure (A/B on the same phone line).
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Well, with CPUs being more and more powerful these days,
>> it's possible for CPUs to manage more load.
>>
>> Hey, I was wondering...since the FAX modem takes AT commands,
>> couldn't I manually send a reset string to it with HyperTerminal or
>> some app capable of sending AT commands?
>
> Only one software can "own" a device like that at a time.
>
> You would have to convince your FAX software to "let go",
> to be able to use Hyperterm. And I don't know if the
> modem has any "modes" it can get into, which prevent
> accepting new commands.
>

MightyFAX has already been closed after
the user canceled (after waiting too long) the fax send.
Can MightyFAX still own the modem? If so,
maybe it's the modem that thinks so since
the data light is ON showing that it's busy sending data?

If I were to try sending AT commands to reset the modem,
what AT commands to use?

> Paul
>

Adam[_5_]

July 16th 15, 03:58 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Okay, which powerful controller-based modem do you have?
>>> Mine is a USRobotics 5686.
>>>
>>> http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/35105687/aphotoalbum/USRobotics5686-03a.jpg
>>>
>>> The more recent versions, you can have fun tracking down the
>>> right INF for the AT command set for them.
>>>
>>> As for the Winmodem winning, it wasn't the percentage that
>>> was important to me. It was for those people who thought
>>> Winmodem architecture was "always inferior". It turns out
>>> that isn't true. A Winmodem can beat a modem with a
>>> controller in it. I couldn't believe it, which is why
>>> I tested several times to be sure (A/B on the same phone line).
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> Well, with CPUs being more and more powerful these days,
>> it's possible for CPUs to manage more load.
>>
>> Hey, I was wondering...since the FAX modem takes AT commands,
>> couldn't I manually send a reset string to it with HyperTerminal or
>> some app capable of sending AT commands?
>
> Only one software can "own" a device like that at a time.
>
> You would have to convince your FAX software to "let go",
> to be able to use Hyperterm. And I don't know if the
> modem has any "modes" it can get into, which prevent
> accepting new commands.
>

Actually, you're right, the modem can get into
a busy sending data mode because
when I close MightyFAX and startup the app again,
attempting to test modem (or send fax) fails with modem busy message.

Can the process be ended/killed using Task Manager?

> Paul
>

Paul

July 16th 15, 04:18 PM

Adam wrote:

> Actually, you're right, the modem can get into
> a busy sending data mode because
> when I close MightyFAX and startup the app again,
> attempting to test modem (or send fax) fails with modem busy message.
>
> Can the process be ended/killed using Task Manager?

I don't know the answer to that.

You might be able to use Sysinternals.com "handle.exe" program,
but I don't know what the naming convention is for those
USB modems.

*******

The only constructive thing I can offer, is to note
that analog telephone lines, there are *at least*
twenty different specs for line termination. That
means that the onhook/offhook thresholds for
North America, might not match what is used in
Great Britain. And someone told me there were at least
20 cases, requiring hardware support. It's possible
some silicon DAA solutions, all of those could be
set by firmware. Whereas, the old fashioned
transformer based DAA type stuff, each instance
would be designed for a particular country.

What I'm warning you about, is buying gray-market
modems. You wouldn't want an RD02 intended for
Russian in North America, or vice versa.

Check on the label of the product, for any "sub-letters"
on the end of the model number, that might be
indicating intended country of usage.

A telephony device, that doesn't go off-hook or
on-hook properly, chances are it is designed for the
wrong standard for your locality.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 16th 15, 06:25 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>
>> Actually, you're right, the modem can get into
>> a busy sending data mode because
>> when I close MightyFAX and startup the app again,
>> attempting to test modem (or send fax) fails with modem busy message.
>>
>> Can the process be ended/killed using Task Manager?
>
> I don't know the answer to that.
>
> You might be able to use Sysinternals.com "handle.exe" program,
> but I don't know what the naming convention is for those
> USB modems.
>
> *******
>
> The only constructive thing I can offer, is to note
> that analog telephone lines, there are *at least*
> twenty different specs for line termination. That
> means that the onhook/offhook thresholds for
> North America, might not match what is used in
> Great Britain. And someone told me there were at least
> 20 cases, requiring hardware support. It's possible
> some silicon DAA solutions, all of those could be
> set by firmware. Whereas, the old fashioned
> transformer based DAA type stuff, each instance
> would be designed for a particular country.
>
> What I'm warning you about, is buying gray-market
> modems. You wouldn't want an RD02 intended for
> Russian in North America, or vice versa.
>
> Check on the label of the product, for any "sub-letters"
> on the end of the model number, that might be
> indicating intended country of usage.
>

Here's some info from the tag attached to the USB modem...

Model Number: RD02-D400
IC: 3652B-RD02D400

Model Name: US: CXSMM01BRD02D400

SUBTEL: 3791

ARGENTINA: CNC 53-5561

Complies with IDA Standards DA104290

CROATIA: TTE-406/07

If necessary, I can scan the tag after I return later today.
Yes, I'm heading out.

> A telephony device, that doesn't go off-hook or
> on-hook properly, chances are it is designed for the
> wrong standard for your locality.
>

Also, I found a US Robotics 5686 from 2002.
Not sure whether it works. And, not sure where to
find the driver.

> Paul

Paul

July 16th 15, 10:22 PM

Adam wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, you're right, the modem can get into
>>> a busy sending data mode because
>>> when I close MightyFAX and startup the app again,
>>> attempting to test modem (or send fax) fails with modem busy message.
>>>
>>> Can the process be ended/killed using Task Manager?
>> I don't know the answer to that.
>>
>> You might be able to use Sysinternals.com "handle.exe" program,
>> but I don't know what the naming convention is for those
>> USB modems.
>>
>> *******
>>
>> The only constructive thing I can offer, is to note
>> that analog telephone lines, there are *at least*
>> twenty different specs for line termination. That
>> means that the onhook/offhook thresholds for
>> North America, might not match what is used in
>> Great Britain. And someone told me there were at least
>> 20 cases, requiring hardware support. It's possible
>> some silicon DAA solutions, all of those could be
>> set by firmware. Whereas, the old fashioned
>> transformer based DAA type stuff, each instance
>> would be designed for a particular country.
>>
>> What I'm warning you about, is buying gray-market
>> modems. You wouldn't want an RD02 intended for
>> Russian in North America, or vice versa.
>>
>> Check on the label of the product, for any "sub-letters"
>> on the end of the model number, that might be
>> indicating intended country of usage.
>>
>
> Here's some info from the tag attached to the USB modem...
>
> Model Number: RD02-D400
> IC: 3652B-RD02D400
>
> Model Name: US: CXSMM01BRD02D400
>
> SUBTEL: 3791
>
> ARGENTINA: CNC 53-5561
>
> Complies with IDA Standards DA104290
>
> CROATIA: TTE-406/07
>
> If necessary, I can scan the tag after I return later today.
> Yes, I'm heading out.
>
>
>> A telephony device, that doesn't go off-hook or
>> on-hook properly, chances are it is designed for the
>> wrong standard for your locality.
>>
>
> Also, I found a US Robotics 5686 from 2002.
> Not sure whether it works. And, not sure where to
> find the driver.
>
>
>> Paul
>
>

I could not find any RD02-D400 with "more encouraging"
labeling on them. One said something about "Paraguay".
I doubt we'd be able to find a list of designs for the
thing. It's just a suggestion, if it won't initiate a call
or won't hang up, it's an issue with the telecom standard.

*******

This is the page I have bookmarked for 5686. Notice it
stops at Win2K. And I bet they're still selling the
modems today. While I would expect the more modern
Windows could have some sort of generic solution, I
remember having to look around for something to suit
my 5686 model. It's possible my revision was newer.

http://www.usr.com/en/support/product?prod=5686

I have a driver for 5686E, but the
files inside aren't exactly explaining what
range of modems it might cover. I don't think I
used this. The installer has an EXE inside it uses to
do a Plug and Play check (check revision).

USR5686v6.04.62.3.exe

By doing a content search in my WinXP INF folder, I can
see this INF. So that's possibly the one I installed - used
the Win2K INF for WinXP. I don't have anything in my notes
file, as to what I did.

; 568603.inf, version 5.03.0007.1
; Copyright 2000, U.S. Robotics
; Windows 95 / 98 INF Support for U.S. Robotics 56K FAX EXT.
; Modified by U.S. Robotics by CF, Application Engineering on 5/23/2001 2:14PM.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 17th 15, 04:52 AM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually, you're right, the modem can get into
>>>> a busy sending data mode because
>>>> when I close MightyFAX and startup the app again,
>>>> attempting to test modem (or send fax) fails with modem busy message.
>>>>
>>>> Can the process be ended/killed using Task Manager?
>>> I don't know the answer to that.
>>>
>>> You might be able to use Sysinternals.com "handle.exe" program,
>>> but I don't know what the naming convention is for those
>>> USB modems.
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> The only constructive thing I can offer, is to note
>>> that analog telephone lines, there are *at least*
>>> twenty different specs for line termination. That
>>> means that the onhook/offhook thresholds for
>>> North America, might not match what is used in
>>> Great Britain. And someone told me there were at least
>>> 20 cases, requiring hardware support. It's possible
>>> some silicon DAA solutions, all of those could be
>>> set by firmware. Whereas, the old fashioned
>>> transformer based DAA type stuff, each instance
>>> would be designed for a particular country.
>>>
>>> What I'm warning you about, is buying gray-market
>>> modems. You wouldn't want an RD02 intended for
>>> Russian in North America, or vice versa.
>>>
>>> Check on the label of the product, for any "sub-letters"
>>> on the end of the model number, that might be
>>> indicating intended country of usage.
>>>
>>
>> Here's some info from the tag attached to the USB modem...
>>
>> Model Number: RD02-D400
>> IC: 3652B-RD02D400
>>
>> Model Name: US: CXSMM01BRD02D400
>>
>> SUBTEL: 3791
>>
>> ARGENTINA: CNC 53-5561
>>
>> Complies with IDA Standards DA104290
>>
>> CROATIA: TTE-406/07
>>
>> If necessary, I can scan the tag after I return later today.
>> Yes, I'm heading out.
>>
>>
>>> A telephony device, that doesn't go off-hook or
>>> on-hook properly, chances are it is designed for the
>>> wrong standard for your locality.
>>>
>>
>> Also, I found a US Robotics 5686 from 2002.
>> Not sure whether it works. And, not sure where to
>> find the driver.
>>
>>
>>> Paul
>>
>
> I could not find any RD02-D400 with "more encouraging"
> labeling on them. One said something about "Paraguay".
> I doubt we'd be able to find a list of designs for the
> thing. It's just a suggestion, if it won't initiate a call
> or won't hang up, it's an issue with the telecom standard.
>

It's not that it won't initiate a call or won't hang up at all.
But, it won't do it consistently.

> *******
>
> This is the page I have bookmarked for 5686. Notice it
> stops at Win2K. And I bet they're still selling the
> modems today. While I would expect the more modern
> Windows could have some sort of generic solution, I
> remember having to look around for something to suit
> my 5686 model. It's possible my revision was newer.
>
> http://www.usr.com/en/support/product?prod=5686
>

Thanks (Guru Paul), searching for "us robotics 5686 driver xp" leads to...
http://support.usr.com/support/product-template.asp?prod=5686e
which shows how to verify the modem version/model.
Since my modem's PRODUCT # is 005686-05, it is verified to be 5686E.

So, USR5686E.zip contains the XP driver for my 5686E modem.

> I have a driver for 5686E, but the
> files inside aren't exactly explaining what
> range of modems it might cover. I don't think I
> used this. The installer has an EXE inside it uses to
> do a Plug and Play check (check revision).
>
> USR5686v6.04.62.3.exe
>
> By doing a content search in my WinXP INF folder, I can
> see this INF. So that's possibly the one I installed - used
> the Win2K INF for WinXP. I don't have anything in my notes
> file, as to what I did.
>
> ; 568603.inf, version 5.03.0007.1
> ; Copyright 2000, U.S. Robotics
> ; Windows 95 / 98 INF Support for U.S. Robotics 56K FAX EXT.
> ; Modified by U.S. Robotics by CF, Application Engineering on 5/23/2001
> 2:14PM.
>
> Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 17th 15, 10:22 PM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Actually, you're right, the modem can get into
>>>>> a busy sending data mode because
>>>>> when I close MightyFAX and startup the app again,
>>>>> attempting to test modem (or send fax) fails with modem busy message.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can the process be ended/killed using Task Manager?
>>>> I don't know the answer to that.
>>>>
>>>> You might be able to use Sysinternals.com "handle.exe" program,
>>>> but I don't know what the naming convention is for those
>>>> USB modems.
>>>>
>>>> *******
>>>>
>>>> The only constructive thing I can offer, is to note
>>>> that analog telephone lines, there are *at least*
>>>> twenty different specs for line termination. That
>>>> means that the onhook/offhook thresholds for
>>>> North America, might not match what is used in
>>>> Great Britain. And someone told me there were at least
>>>> 20 cases, requiring hardware support. It's possible
>>>> some silicon DAA solutions, all of those could be
>>>> set by firmware. Whereas, the old fashioned
>>>> transformer based DAA type stuff, each instance
>>>> would be designed for a particular country.
>>>>
>>>> What I'm warning you about, is buying gray-market
>>>> modems. You wouldn't want an RD02 intended for
>>>> Russian in North America, or vice versa.
>>>>
>>>> Check on the label of the product, for any "sub-letters"
>>>> on the end of the model number, that might be
>>>> indicating intended country of usage.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Here's some info from the tag attached to the USB modem...
>>>
>>> Model Number: RD02-D400
>>> IC: 3652B-RD02D400
>>>
>>> Model Name: US: CXSMM01BRD02D400
>>>
>>> SUBTEL: 3791
>>>
>>> ARGENTINA: CNC 53-5561
>>>
>>> Complies with IDA Standards DA104290
>>>
>>> CROATIA: TTE-406/07
>>>
>>> If necessary, I can scan the tag after I return later today.
>>> Yes, I'm heading out.
>>>
>>>
>>>> A telephony device, that doesn't go off-hook or
>>>> on-hook properly, chances are it is designed for the
>>>> wrong standard for your locality.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Also, I found a US Robotics 5686 from 2002.
>>> Not sure whether it works. And, not sure where to
>>> find the driver.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>
>> I could not find any RD02-D400 with "more encouraging"
>> labeling on them. One said something about "Paraguay".
>> I doubt we'd be able to find a list of designs for the
>> thing. It's just a suggestion, if it won't initiate a call
>> or won't hang up, it's an issue with the telecom standard.
>>
>
> It's not that it won't initiate a call or won't hang up at all.
> But, it won't do it consistently.
>
>
>> *******
>>
>> This is the page I have bookmarked for 5686. Notice it
>> stops at Win2K. And I bet they're still selling the
>> modems today. While I would expect the more modern
>> Windows could have some sort of generic solution, I
>> remember having to look around for something to suit
>> my 5686 model. It's possible my revision was newer.
>>
>> http://www.usr.com/en/support/product?prod=5686
>>
>
> Thanks (Guru Paul), searching for "us robotics 5686 driver xp" leads to...
> http://support.usr.com/support/product-template.asp?prod=5686e
> which shows how to verify the modem version/model.
> Since my modem's PRODUCT # is 005686-05, it is verified to be 5686E.
>
> So, USR5686E.zip contains the XP driver for my 5686E modem.
>

According to the instructions...
================================================== ==================
Version 5.04.62.2 - Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, XP, Server 2003, XP 64 bit,
and Server 2003 64 bit INF file
Note: USRobotics Internet Call Notification, Control Center, and BVRP
PhoneTools are not supported on a 64-bit operating system.

1) Download the USR5686E.zip file to a temporary location on your
computer's hard disk drive such as C:\temp and extract the files.
2) In Control Panel, double-click Modems and remove all Sportster modems.
3) Shutdown the computer, connect and turn on the modem, and restart the
computer.
4) When prompted, choose Driver from disk provided by hardware
manufacturer or search for the best driver and click OK.
5) Click Browse to find the location of the saved USR5686E.inf file
located on your computer's hard disk drive.
6) Select the U.S. Robotics 56K fax external and then follow the prompts
to finish the installation.
================================================== ==================

The 5686E modem is attached via a USB to Serial Converter.

However, I am not prompted (as step 4 suggests) with a dialog box.

What to do?

>
>> I have a driver for 5686E, but the
>> files inside aren't exactly explaining what
>> range of modems it might cover. I don't think I
>> used this. The installer has an EXE inside it uses to
>> do a Plug and Play check (check revision).
>>
>> USR5686v6.04.62.3.exe
>>
>> By doing a content search in my WinXP INF folder, I can
>> see this INF. So that's possibly the one I installed - used
>> the Win2K INF for WinXP. I don't have anything in my notes
>> file, as to what I did.
>>
>> ; 568603.inf, version 5.03.0007.1
>> ; Copyright 2000, U.S. Robotics
>> ; Windows 95 / 98 INF Support for U.S. Robotics 56K FAX EXT.
>> ; Modified by U.S. Robotics by CF, Application Engineering on 5/23/2001
>> 2:14PM.
>>
>> Paul
>

Paul

July 17th 15, 11:05 PM

Adam wrote:

>
> According to the instructions...
> ================================================== ==================
> Version 5.04.62.2 - Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, XP, Server 2003, XP 64 bit,
> and Server 2003 64 bit INF file
> Note: USRobotics Internet Call Notification, Control Center, and BVRP
> PhoneTools are not supported on a 64-bit operating system.
>
> 1) Download the USR5686E.zip file to a temporary location on your
> computer's hard disk drive such as C:\temp and extract the files.
> 2) In Control Panel, double-click Modems and remove all Sportster modems.
> 3) Shutdown the computer, connect and turn on the modem, and restart the
> computer.
> 4) When prompted, choose Driver from disk provided by hardware
> manufacturer or search for the best driver and click OK.
> 5) Click Browse to find the location of the saved USR5686E.inf file
> located on your computer's hard disk drive.
> 6) Select the U.S. Robotics 56K fax external and then follow the prompts
> to finish the installation.
> ================================================== ==================
>
> The 5686E modem is attached via a USB to Serial Converter.
>
> However, I am not prompted (as step 4 suggests) with a dialog box.
>
> What to do?

Suggestion here. And consistent with what I'm seeing here.

http://www.stenograph.com/HelpDeskDocs/BCS/Installing%20A%20USRobotics%205686E%20Modem%20In%2 0Windows%207.htm

The Phone and Modem control panel, when asked to search
for a modem, doesn't blink the light on my powered 5686
even once.

So that means you have to click next, and manually install
it, *telling* the OS the COM port number.

It would appear the PNP is completely broken.

Once you get the modem installed, the new Modem entry in
Device manager, will have a Diagnostic tab. Clicking
in there, will finally generate some blinken-light effects
on the new modem, and it will issue AT commands to
query the properties of the modem.

That's the only operation I can verify here that works.

I tried plugging the 5686 into COM5 (new), and no amount
of PNP stuff, Phone and Modem control panel stuff, would
illicit blinking LEDs. But once the Phone and Modem panel is
told "Modem X is on COM port Y" via the manual procedure,
you should be able to find a new modem in Device Manager and
issue a Diagnostic as proof it works.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 17th 15, 11:44 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>
>>
>> According to the instructions...
>> ================================================== ==================
>> Version 5.04.62.2 - Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, XP, Server 2003, XP 64 bit,
>> and Server 2003 64 bit INF file
>> Note: USRobotics Internet Call Notification, Control Center, and BVRP
>> PhoneTools are not supported on a 64-bit operating system.
>>
>> 1) Download the USR5686E.zip file to a temporary location on your
>> computer's hard disk drive such as C:\temp and extract the files.
>> 2) In Control Panel, double-click Modems and remove all Sportster
>> modems.
>> 3) Shutdown the computer, connect and turn on the modem, and restart
>> the computer.
>> 4) When prompted, choose Driver from disk provided by hardware
>> manufacturer or search for the best driver and click OK.
>> 5) Click Browse to find the location of the saved USR5686E.inf file
>> located on your computer's hard disk drive.
>> 6) Select the U.S. Robotics 56K fax external and then follow the
>> prompts to finish the installation.
>> ================================================== ==================
>>
>> The 5686E modem is attached via a USB to Serial Converter.
>>
>> However, I am not prompted (as step 4 suggests) with a dialog box.
>>
>> What to do?
>
> Suggestion here. And consistent with what I'm seeing here.
>
> http://www.stenograph.com/HelpDeskDocs/BCS/Installing%20A%20USRobotics%205686E%20Modem%20In%2 0Windows%207.htm
>
> The Phone and Modem control panel, when asked to search
> for a modem, doesn't blink the light on my powered 5686
> even once.
>
> So that means you have to click next, and manually install
> it, *telling* the OS the COM port number.
>
> It would appear the PNP is completely broken.
>
> Once you get the modem installed, the new Modem entry in
> Device manager, will have a Diagnostic tab. Clicking
> in there, will finally generate some blinken-light effects
> on the new modem, and it will issue AT commands to
> query the properties of the modem.
>

Thanks, found the "Standard 56k modem" listed in Device Manager.
However, attempting to "Query Modem" from "Diagnostics" tab of modem says...
================================================== ======
"The modem failed to respond. Make sure it is properly connected and turned
on."
================================================== ======
Maybe the 5686E modem no longer works. If I shop for another 5686,
what's the best one to get? 5686E, 5686G or other?

Also, I did not have to install the INF file that was downloaded.
Does that mean WinXP already had the driver installed?

> That's the only operation I can verify here that works.
>
> I tried plugging the 5686 into COM5 (new), and no amount
> of PNP stuff, Phone and Modem control panel stuff, would
> illicit blinking LEDs. But once the Phone and Modem panel is
> told "Modem X is on COM port Y" via the manual procedure,
> you should be able to find a new modem in Device Manager and
> issue a Diagnostic as proof it works.
>
> Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 17th 15, 11:47 PM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> According to the instructions...
>>> ================================================== ==================
>>> Version 5.04.62.2 - Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, XP, Server 2003, XP 64
>>> bit, and Server 2003 64 bit INF file
>>> Note: USRobotics Internet Call Notification, Control Center, and BVRP
>>> PhoneTools are not supported on a 64-bit operating system.
>>>
>>> 1) Download the USR5686E.zip file to a temporary location on your
>>> computer's hard disk drive such as C:\temp and extract the files.
>>> 2) In Control Panel, double-click Modems and remove all Sportster
>>> modems.
>>> 3) Shutdown the computer, connect and turn on the modem, and restart
>>> the computer.
>>> 4) When prompted, choose Driver from disk provided by hardware
>>> manufacturer or search for the best driver and click OK.
>>> 5) Click Browse to find the location of the saved USR5686E.inf file
>>> located on your computer's hard disk drive.
>>> 6) Select the U.S. Robotics 56K fax external and then follow the
>>> prompts to finish the installation.
>>> ================================================== ==================
>>>
>>> The 5686E modem is attached via a USB to Serial Converter.
>>>
>>> However, I am not prompted (as step 4 suggests) with a dialog box.
>>>
>>> What to do?
>>
>> Suggestion here. And consistent with what I'm seeing here.
>>
>> http://www.stenograph.com/HelpDeskDocs/BCS/Installing%20A%20USRobotics%205686E%20Modem%20In%2 0Windows%207.htm
>>
>> The Phone and Modem control panel, when asked to search
>> for a modem, doesn't blink the light on my powered 5686
>> even once.
>>
>> So that means you have to click next, and manually install
>> it, *telling* the OS the COM port number.
>>
>> It would appear the PNP is completely broken.
>>
>> Once you get the modem installed, the new Modem entry in
>> Device manager, will have a Diagnostic tab. Clicking
>> in there, will finally generate some blinken-light effects
>> on the new modem, and it will issue AT commands to
>> query the properties of the modem.
>>
>
> Thanks, found the "Standard 56k modem" listed in Device Manager.
> However, attempting to "Query Modem" from "Diagnostics" tab of modem
> says...
> ================================================== ======
> "The modem failed to respond. Make sure it is properly connected and
> turned on."
> ================================================== ======
> Maybe the 5686E modem no longer works. If I shop for another 5686,
> what's the best one to get? 5686E, 5686G or other?
>
> Also, I did not have to install the INF file that was downloaded.
> Does that mean WinXP already had the driver installed?
>
>
>> That's the only operation I can verify here that works.
>>
>> I tried plugging the 5686 into COM5 (new), and no amount
>> of PNP stuff, Phone and Modem control panel stuff, would
>> illicit blinking LEDs. But once the Phone and Modem panel is
>> told "Modem X is on COM port Y" via the manual procedure,
>> you should be able to find a new modem in Device Manager and
>> issue a Diagnostic as proof it works.
>>
>> Paul
>

Also, there are 8 tiny flip switches near the 5686E connector ports.
How do I confirm that they are set correctly?

Adam[_5_]

July 18th 15, 12:11 AM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to the instructions...
>>>> ================================================== ==================
>>>> Version 5.04.62.2 - Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, XP, Server 2003, XP 64
>>>> bit, and Server 2003 64 bit INF file
>>>> Note: USRobotics Internet Call Notification, Control Center, and BVRP
>>>> PhoneTools are not supported on a 64-bit operating system.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Download the USR5686E.zip file to a temporary location on your
>>>> computer's hard disk drive such as C:\temp and extract the files.
>>>> 2) In Control Panel, double-click Modems and remove all Sportster
>>>> modems.
>>>> 3) Shutdown the computer, connect and turn on the modem, and restart
>>>> the computer.
>>>> 4) When prompted, choose Driver from disk provided by hardware
>>>> manufacturer or search for the best driver and click OK.
>>>> 5) Click Browse to find the location of the saved USR5686E.inf file
>>>> located on your computer's hard disk drive.
>>>> 6) Select the U.S. Robotics 56K fax external and then follow the
>>>> prompts to finish the installation.
>>>> ================================================== ==================
>>>>
>>>> The 5686E modem is attached via a USB to Serial Converter.
>>>>
>>>> However, I am not prompted (as step 4 suggests) with a dialog box.
>>>>
>>>> What to do?
>>>
>>> Suggestion here. And consistent with what I'm seeing here.
>>>
>>> http://www.stenograph.com/HelpDeskDocs/BCS/Installing%20A%20USRobotics%205686E%20Modem%20In%2 0Windows%207.htm
>>>
>>> The Phone and Modem control panel, when asked to search
>>> for a modem, doesn't blink the light on my powered 5686
>>> even once.
>>>
>>> So that means you have to click next, and manually install
>>> it, *telling* the OS the COM port number.
>>>
>>> It would appear the PNP is completely broken.
>>>
>>> Once you get the modem installed, the new Modem entry in
>>> Device manager, will have a Diagnostic tab. Clicking
>>> in there, will finally generate some blinken-light effects
>>> on the new modem, and it will issue AT commands to
>>> query the properties of the modem.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks, found the "Standard 56k modem" listed in Device Manager.
>> However, attempting to "Query Modem" from "Diagnostics" tab of modem
>> says...
>> ================================================== ======
>> "The modem failed to respond. Make sure it is properly connected and
>> turned on."
>> ================================================== ======
>> Maybe the 5686E modem no longer works. If I shop for another 5686,
>> what's the best one to get? 5686E, 5686G or other?
>>
>> Also, I did not have to install the INF file that was downloaded.
>> Does that mean WinXP already had the driver installed?
>>
>>
>>> That's the only operation I can verify here that works.
>>>
>>> I tried plugging the 5686 into COM5 (new), and no amount
>>> of PNP stuff, Phone and Modem control panel stuff, would
>>> illicit blinking LEDs. But once the Phone and Modem panel is
>>> told "Modem X is on COM port Y" via the manual procedure,
>>> you should be able to find a new modem in Device Manager and
>>> issue a Diagnostic as proof it works.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>
> Also, there are 8 tiny flip switches near the 5686E connector ports.
> How do I confirm that they are set correctly?
>

Nevermind, only DIP switches 3, 5, and 8 are in the on (down) position.
http://support.usr.com/support/5686e/5686e-files/5686e-ig.pdf

Paul

July 18th 15, 12:37 AM

Adam wrote:
> "Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> According to the instructions...
>>>>> ================================================== ==================
>>>>> Version 5.04.62.2 - Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, XP, Server 2003, XP 64
>>>>> bit, and Server 2003 64 bit INF file
>>>>> Note: USRobotics Internet Call Notification, Control Center, and BVRP
>>>>> PhoneTools are not supported on a 64-bit operating system.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Download the USR5686E.zip file to a temporary location on your
>>>>> computer's hard disk drive such as C:\temp and extract the files.
>>>>> 2) In Control Panel, double-click Modems and remove all Sportster
>>>>> modems.
>>>>> 3) Shutdown the computer, connect and turn on the modem, and restart
>>>>> the computer.
>>>>> 4) When prompted, choose Driver from disk provided by hardware
>>>>> manufacturer or search for the best driver and click OK.
>>>>> 5) Click Browse to find the location of the saved USR5686E.inf file
>>>>> located on your computer's hard disk drive.
>>>>> 6) Select the U.S. Robotics 56K fax external and then follow the
>>>>> prompts to finish the installation.
>>>>> ================================================== ==================
>>>>>
>>>>> The 5686E modem is attached via a USB to Serial Converter.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I am not prompted (as step 4 suggests) with a dialog box.
>>>>>
>>>>> What to do?
>>>> Suggestion here. And consistent with what I'm seeing here.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.stenograph.com/HelpDeskDocs/BCS/Installing%20A%20USRobotics%205686E%20Modem%20In%2 0Windows%207.htm
>>>>
>>>> The Phone and Modem control panel, when asked to search
>>>> for a modem, doesn't blink the light on my powered 5686
>>>> even once.
>>>>
>>>> So that means you have to click next, and manually install
>>>> it, *telling* the OS the COM port number.
>>>>
>>>> It would appear the PNP is completely broken.
>>>>
>>>> Once you get the modem installed, the new Modem entry in
>>>> Device manager, will have a Diagnostic tab. Clicking
>>>> in there, will finally generate some blinken-light effects
>>>> on the new modem, and it will issue AT commands to
>>>> query the properties of the modem.
>>>>
>>> Thanks, found the "Standard 56k modem" listed in Device Manager.
>>> However, attempting to "Query Modem" from "Diagnostics" tab of modem
>>> says...
>>> ================================================== ======
>>> "The modem failed to respond. Make sure it is properly connected and
>>> turned on."
>>> ================================================== ======
>>> Maybe the 5686E modem no longer works. If I shop for another 5686,
>>> what's the best one to get? 5686E, 5686G or other?
>>>
>>> Also, I did not have to install the INF file that was downloaded.
>>> Does that mean WinXP already had the driver installed?
>>>
>>>
>>>> That's the only operation I can verify here that works.
>>>>
>>>> I tried plugging the 5686 into COM5 (new), and no amount
>>>> of PNP stuff, Phone and Modem control panel stuff, would
>>>> illicit blinking LEDs. But once the Phone and Modem panel is
>>>> told "Modem X is on COM port Y" via the manual procedure,
>>>> you should be able to find a new modem in Device Manager and
>>>> issue a Diagnostic as proof it works.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>> Also, there are 8 tiny flip switches near the 5686E connector ports.
>> How do I confirm that they are set correctly?
>>
>
> Nevermind, only DIP switches 3, 5, and 8 are in the on (down) position.
> http://support.usr.com/support/5686e/5686e-files/5686e-ig.pdf

Maybe my OS wouldn't be such a good test vehicle, as right
now, my boot.ini has /fastdetect set in it. I hope that
doesn't affect "Scan for hardware changes" and runtime behavior.
I thought that only affects boot time behavior.

https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff557108(v=vs.85).aspx

*******

My 5686 Rev.3 has a sticker on the bottom of the
unit, with a legend as to what the DIP switches do.

*******

If the modem shows as "generic", first, I'm surprised it
even found the modem.

I would unpack the ZIP you got, and look
for an INF. It should be chock full of
INIT strings to allow the automation to do
things with the modem. Offer to upgrade the
driver, point it at the folder you just
unpacked, and see if the new identity string
appears as a side-effect of "installing the driver".
Check Device Manager again later. Such an install
shouldn't need a reboot (no .dll, .sys kinda stuff).

Just a guess,
Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 18th 15, 01:17 AM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> According to the instructions...
>>>>>> ================================================== ==================
>>>>>> Version 5.04.62.2 - Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, Me, XP, Server 2003, XP 64
>>>>>> bit, and Server 2003 64 bit INF file
>>>>>> Note: USRobotics Internet Call Notification, Control Center, and BVRP
>>>>>> PhoneTools are not supported on a 64-bit operating system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Download the USR5686E.zip file to a temporary location on your
>>>>>> computer's hard disk drive such as C:\temp and extract the files.
>>>>>> 2) In Control Panel, double-click Modems and remove all Sportster
>>>>>> modems.
>>>>>> 3) Shutdown the computer, connect and turn on the modem, and
>>>>>> restart the computer.
>>>>>> 4) When prompted, choose Driver from disk provided by hardware
>>>>>> manufacturer or search for the best driver and click OK.
>>>>>> 5) Click Browse to find the location of the saved USR5686E.inf
>>>>>> file located on your computer's hard disk drive.
>>>>>> 6) Select the U.S. Robotics 56K fax external and then follow the
>>>>>> prompts to finish the installation.
>>>>>> ================================================== ==================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The 5686E modem is attached via a USB to Serial Converter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, I am not prompted (as step 4 suggests) with a dialog box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What to do?
>>>>> Suggestion here. And consistent with what I'm seeing here.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.stenograph.com/HelpDeskDocs/BCS/Installing%20A%20USRobotics%205686E%20Modem%20In%2 0Windows%207.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> The Phone and Modem control panel, when asked to search
>>>>> for a modem, doesn't blink the light on my powered 5686
>>>>> even once.
>>>>>
>>>>> So that means you have to click next, and manually install
>>>>> it, *telling* the OS the COM port number.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would appear the PNP is completely broken.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you get the modem installed, the new Modem entry in
>>>>> Device manager, will have a Diagnostic tab. Clicking
>>>>> in there, will finally generate some blinken-light effects
>>>>> on the new modem, and it will issue AT commands to
>>>>> query the properties of the modem.
>>>>>
>>>> Thanks, found the "Standard 56k modem" listed in Device Manager.
>>>> However, attempting to "Query Modem" from "Diagnostics" tab of modem
>>>> says...
>>>> ================================================== ======
>>>> "The modem failed to respond. Make sure it is properly connected and
>>>> turned on."
>>>> ================================================== ======
>>>> Maybe the 5686E modem no longer works. If I shop for another 5686,
>>>> what's the best one to get? 5686E, 5686G or other?
>>>>
>>>> Also, I did not have to install the INF file that was downloaded.
>>>> Does that mean WinXP already had the driver installed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That's the only operation I can verify here that works.
>>>>>
>>>>> I tried plugging the 5686 into COM5 (new), and no amount
>>>>> of PNP stuff, Phone and Modem control panel stuff, would
>>>>> illicit blinking LEDs. But once the Phone and Modem panel is
>>>>> told "Modem X is on COM port Y" via the manual procedure,
>>>>> you should be able to find a new modem in Device Manager and
>>>>> issue a Diagnostic as proof it works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>> Also, there are 8 tiny flip switches near the 5686E connector ports.
>>> How do I confirm that they are set correctly?
>>>
>>
>> Nevermind, only DIP switches 3, 5, and 8 are in the on (down) position.
>> http://support.usr.com/support/5686e/5686e-files/5686e-ig.pdf
>
> Maybe my OS wouldn't be such a good test vehicle, as right
> now, my boot.ini has /fastdetect set in it. I hope that
> doesn't affect "Scan for hardware changes" and runtime behavior.
> I thought that only affects boot time behavior.
>
> https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff557108(v=vs.85).aspx
>
> *******
>
> My 5686 Rev.3 has a sticker on the bottom of the
> unit, with a legend as to what the DIP switches do.
>
> *******
>
> If the modem shows as "generic", first, I'm surprised it
> even found the modem.
>
> I would unpack the ZIP you got, and look
> for an INF. It should be chock full of
> INIT strings to allow the automation to do
> things with the modem. Offer to upgrade the
> driver, point it at the folder you just
> unpacked, and see if the new identity string
> appears as a side-effect of "installing the driver".
> Check Device Manager again later. Such an install
> shouldn't need a reboot (no .dll, .sys kinda stuff).
>
> Just a guess,
> Paul
>

Attempting to "Update Driver" brings up the Hardware Update Wizard with
the following message...
================================================== =
Cannot Continue the Hardware Update Wizard

The wizard could not find a better match for your hardware than
the software you currently have installed.
================================================== =
after the downloaded INF location was pointed to.

Paul

July 18th 15, 04:46 AM

Adam wrote:

> Attempting to "Update Driver" brings up the Hardware Update Wizard with
> the following message...
> ================================================== =
> Cannot Continue the Hardware Update Wizard
>
> The wizard could not find a better match for your hardware than
> the software you currently have installed.
> ================================================== =
> after the downloaded INF location was pointed to.

Are you installing the 5686E driver to the
5686E modem ?

*******

I did a simulation. I set up a virtual WinXP machine
on the test machine. The test machine has one "real"
serial port. It's COM1. I set virtualbox for COM1,
and there is a trick to setting that up. As usual with
Virtualbox, the defaults offered are never right for
the users, so it's a struggle. Someone wrote a guide,
because the available info sucked.

https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23956

I could get the f'ing thing to the point, that I could
get two Hyperterms talking to one another. I ran a cable
temporarily from one machine to the other (with Null Modem
dongle in the center), and got that working
OK. That proved the wiring was OK.

So I removed the Null Modem dongle, and connected the modem
back up.

Next, I tried the Phone and Modem control panel, and I
could *never* get that to detect anything. Never once, a
flash of a modem light.

I used this kinda stuff, and occasionally I would
get better results.

mode com1:9600,N,8,1,P
echo hello >com1:

But it still wouldn't get the stinking modem installed.

I offered it the 5686E driver, and it would not
present anything out of the INF file in that folder
of stuff. The device list, after it parses the file,
was empty.

So I decided to try my 00568603.inf file from
a while back.

; 568603.inf, version 5.03.0007.1
; Copyright 2000, U.S. Robotics
; Windows 95 / 98 INF Support for U.S. Robotics 56K FAX EXT.
; Modified by U.S. Robotics by CF, Application Engineering on 5/23/2001 2:14PM.

And when bypassing detection and just offering the driver,
that one installed.

I got a Modem entry in Device Manager, and using the
Diagnostic command there, that worked. At some point,
I might have had to enter

mode com1:9600,N,8,1,P

in Command Prompt, to prime the pump. I expect this is an
artifact of the VM setup, rather than a real issue.

I suspect much of the other (useless) responses I was
getting, were for real. Detection doesn't work worth a damn.

But I did get it installed, using an older file.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 18th 15, 05:34 AM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>
>> Attempting to "Update Driver" brings up the Hardware Update Wizard with
>> the following message...
>> ================================================== =
>> Cannot Continue the Hardware Update Wizard
>>
>> The wizard could not find a better match for your hardware than
>> the software you currently have installed.
>> ================================================== =
>> after the downloaded INF location was pointed to.
>
> Are you installing the 5686E driver to the
> 5686E modem ?
>

No, the INF is for WinXP. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to know the OS.

> *******
>
> I did a simulation. I set up a virtual WinXP machine
> on the test machine. The test machine has one "real"
> serial port. It's COM1. I set virtualbox for COM1,
> and there is a trick to setting that up. As usual with
> Virtualbox, the defaults offered are never right for
> the users, so it's a struggle. Someone wrote a guide,
> because the available info sucked.
>
> https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23956
>
> I could get the f'ing thing to the point, that I could
> get two Hyperterms talking to one another. I ran a cable
> temporarily from one machine to the other (with Null Modem
> dongle in the center), and got that working
> OK. That proved the wiring was OK.
>
> So I removed the Null Modem dongle, and connected the modem
> back up.
>
> Next, I tried the Phone and Modem control panel, and I
> could *never* get that to detect anything. Never once, a
> flash of a modem light.
>

I was able to get the modem lights to flash though. I could see it flashing
very briefly.
I bought the 5686E modem used from a questionable seller. I have not been
able to get it to work yet.
I recall USRobotics tech support helped me troubleshoot and told me that it
no longer works.
I guess I was hoping they were wrong.

I'm pretty sure I found the right COM port (COM4) because...

1) MightyFAX has a "Test Modem" button that
will cycle through N number of possible COM ports.
And, COM4 is the only one that came up with a unique "Unknown"
message.
2) when I was trying to Update Driver, COM4 was the only COM port listed.

> I used this kinda stuff, and occasionally I would
> get better results.
>
> mode com1:9600,N,8,1,P
> echo hello >com1:
>
> But it still wouldn't get the stinking modem installed.
>
> I offered it the 5686E driver, and it would not
> present anything out of the INF file in that folder
> of stuff. The device list, after it parses the file,
> was empty.
>
> So I decided to try my 00568603.inf file from
> a while back.
>
> ; 568603.inf, version 5.03.0007.1
> ; Copyright 2000, U.S. Robotics
> ; Windows 95 / 98 INF Support for U.S. Robotics 56K FAX EXT.
> ; Modified by U.S. Robotics by CF, Application Engineering on 5/23/2001
> 2:14PM.
>
> And when bypassing detection and just offering the driver,
> that one installed.
>
> I got a Modem entry in Device Manager, and using the
> Diagnostic command there, that worked. At some point,
> I might have had to enter
>
> mode com1:9600,N,8,1,P
>
> in Command Prompt, to prime the pump. I expect this is an
> artifact of the VM setup, rather than a real issue.
>

Okay, let me try to get the 5686E modem to work using my old laptop,
which has a physical serial port and does not use VM.

> I suspect much of the other (useless) responses I was
> getting, were for real. Detection doesn't work worth a damn.
>
> But I did get it installed, using an older file.
>
> Paul
>

Adam[_5_]

July 18th 15, 06:17 AM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>
>>> Attempting to "Update Driver" brings up the Hardware Update Wizard with
>>> the following message...
>>> ================================================== =
>>> Cannot Continue the Hardware Update Wizard
>>>
>>> The wizard could not find a better match for your hardware than
>>> the software you currently have installed.
>>> ================================================== =
>>> after the downloaded INF location was pointed to.
>>
>> Are you installing the 5686E driver to the
>> 5686E modem ?
>>
>
> No, the INF is for WinXP. Otherwise, they wouldn't need to know the OS.
>
>
>> *******
>>
>> I did a simulation. I set up a virtual WinXP machine
>> on the test machine. The test machine has one "real"
>> serial port. It's COM1. I set virtualbox for COM1,
>> and there is a trick to setting that up. As usual with
>> Virtualbox, the defaults offered are never right for
>> the users, so it's a struggle. Someone wrote a guide,
>> because the available info sucked.
>>
>> https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=23956
>>
>> I could get the f'ing thing to the point, that I could
>> get two Hyperterms talking to one another. I ran a cable
>> temporarily from one machine to the other (with Null Modem
>> dongle in the center), and got that working
>> OK. That proved the wiring was OK.
>>
>> So I removed the Null Modem dongle, and connected the modem
>> back up.
>>
>> Next, I tried the Phone and Modem control panel, and I
>> could *never* get that to detect anything. Never once, a
>> flash of a modem light.
>>
>
> I was able to get the modem lights to flash though. I could see it
> flashing very briefly.
> I bought the 5686E modem used from a questionable seller. I have not been
> able to get it to work yet.
> I recall USRobotics tech support helped me troubleshoot and told me that
> it no longer works.
> I guess I was hoping they were wrong.
>
> I'm pretty sure I found the right COM port (COM4) because...
>
> 1) MightyFAX has a "Test Modem" button that
> will cycle through N number of possible COM ports.
> And, COM4 is the only one that came up with a unique "Unknown"
> message.
> 2) when I was trying to Update Driver, COM4 was the only COM port
> listed.
>
>
>> I used this kinda stuff, and occasionally I would
>> get better results.
>>
>> mode com1:9600,N,8,1,P
>> echo hello >com1:
>>
>> But it still wouldn't get the stinking modem installed.
>>
>> I offered it the 5686E driver, and it would not
>> present anything out of the INF file in that folder
>> of stuff. The device list, after it parses the file,
>> was empty.
>>
>> So I decided to try my 00568603.inf file from
>> a while back.
>>
>> ; 568603.inf, version 5.03.0007.1
>> ; Copyright 2000, U.S. Robotics
>> ; Windows 95 / 98 INF Support for U.S. Robotics 56K FAX EXT.
>> ; Modified by U.S. Robotics by CF, Application Engineering on 5/23/2001
>> 2:14PM.
>>
>> And when bypassing detection and just offering the driver,
>> that one installed.
>>
>> I got a Modem entry in Device Manager, and using the
>> Diagnostic command there, that worked. At some point,
>> I might have had to enter
>>
>> mode com1:9600,N,8,1,P
>>
>> in Command Prompt, to prime the pump. I expect this is an
>> artifact of the VM setup, rather than a real issue.
>>
>
> Okay, let me try to get the 5686E modem to work using my old laptop,
> which has a physical serial port and does not use VM.
>

Result is Win98SE/MightyFAX listed/detected
the US Robotics 56k FAX EXT PnP 5686E modem for selection without
user having to install any driver.

And, clicking Test Modem button (in MightyFAX) causes
modem lights to flash and the following message...
================================================== ============
Opened the port
...however no modem was detected (modem did not respond)
================================================== ============
The 5686E modem may be dead.

>
>> I suspect much of the other (useless) responses I was
>> getting, were for real. Detection doesn't work worth a damn.
>>
>> But I did get it installed, using an older file.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>

Paul

July 18th 15, 07:28 AM

Adam wrote:

> The 5686E modem may be dead.

Use Hyperterm, pick the named COM port, set to 9600,8,N,1
when setting up a new connection in Hyperterm.

Cycle the power on the modem (so it can autodetect baud).

Enter "AT" into Hyperterm.

If the modem is there, echo should be working, and the
letters you typed ("AT") should appear on the screen.
Without echo of that sort, you might not see anything.

Use your return key.

The model should answer an AT request, with

OK

That's how you can do a basic test. If you use a bald AT
command, then you should get an OK in response.

If you could see the modem diagnostic feedback in the
Device Manager properties of the modem, you would also
see other, more complicated AT commands, that return
things like firmware version and so on. The diagnostic
command even dumps all that output into a log file for you
(for easy copy/paste later).

For example

ATI7

would return

ATI7 - Configuration Profile...
Product type US/Canada External
Product ID: 00568600
Options V32bis,V.34+,x2,V.90
Fax Options Class 1/Class 2.0
Line Options Caller ID, Distinctive Ring
Clock Freq 92.0Mhz
EPROM 256k
RAM 32k
FLASH date 2/24/98
FLASH rev 4.9.1
DSP date 2/24/98
DSP rev 4.9.1

Also, take another look at those DIP switches.

HTH,
Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 18th 15, 10:38 AM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>
>> The 5686E modem may be dead.
>
> Use Hyperterm, pick the named COM port, set to 9600,8,N,1
> when setting up a new connection in Hyperterm.
>
> Cycle the power on the modem (so it can autodetect baud).
>
> Enter "AT" into Hyperterm.
>
> If the modem is there, echo should be working, and the
> letters you typed ("AT") should appear on the screen.
> Without echo of that sort, you might not see anything.
>

I see "AT" echoed in the terminal.

> Use your return key.
>
> The model should answer an AT request, with
>
> OK
>

No answer after the <Enter> key.

Status at the bottom shows connected at 9600 8-N-1.

> That's how you can do a basic test. If you use a bald AT
> command, then you should get an OK in response.
>
> If you could see the modem diagnostic feedback in the
> Device Manager properties of the modem, you would also
> see other, more complicated AT commands, that return
> things like firmware version and so on. The diagnostic
> command even dumps all that output into a log file for you
> (for easy copy/paste later).
>

Maybe the firmware is bad?

> For example
>
> ATI7
>
> would return
>
> ATI7 - Configuration Profile...
> Product type US/Canada External
> Product ID: 00568600
> Options V32bis,V.34+,x2,V.90
> Fax Options Class 1/Class 2.0
> Line Options Caller ID, Distinctive Ring
> Clock Freq 92.0Mhz
> EPROM 256k
> RAM 32k
> FLASH date 2/24/98
> FLASH rev 4.9.1
> DSP date 2/24/98
> DSP rev 4.9.1
>
> Also, take another look at those DIP switches.
>

DIP switches look fine...3,5,8 are in the down position.

> HTH,
> Paul

Paul

July 18th 15, 03:07 PM

Adam wrote:

>
> Maybe the firmware is bad?

Well, I've never flashed mine, so I have no
idea what the procedure is like, whether it
can be done no matter what, and so on. Some
flashing procedures require "sane" hardware,
so if the previous version isn't actually
running, the thing is effectively bricked.

I think at some point, there may have been
a V.90 to V.92 upgrade available.

Only a few designs are robust enough, they
can be flashed and recovered at any time, no
matter what. Short of an outright complete
hardware failure of course. For example, my
newest Asus motherboard, you can flash that
one, even if the CPU is removed from the
socket. The motherboard has a separate circuit
to help the user flash upgrade. Which makes it
harder to completely ruin that motherboard.

I doubt there is anything to look at inside
that modem. If the flash chip was socketed,
you would have a remote possibility of
taking the chip somewhere and having it
flashed. But then, you'd also need a "plaintext"
flash file to do that with. And know what address
to flash it at.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 18th 15, 04:24 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>
>>
>> Maybe the firmware is bad?
>
> Well, I've never flashed mine, so I have no
> idea what the procedure is like, whether it
> can be done no matter what, and so on. Some
> flashing procedures require "sane" hardware,
> so if the previous version isn't actually
> running, the thing is effectively bricked.
>

This post/response shows up in another location in the thread because
my mail client complained about the header being too long and
would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.

If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
So, I think it may be worth a try.

I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
What is the best one that can be had for cheap?

> I think at some point, there may have been
> a V.90 to V.92 upgrade available.
>
> Only a few designs are robust enough, they
> can be flashed and recovered at any time, no
> matter what. Short of an outright complete
> hardware failure of course. For example, my
> newest Asus motherboard, you can flash that
> one, even if the CPU is removed from the
> socket. The motherboard has a separate circuit
> to help the user flash upgrade. Which makes it
> harder to completely ruin that motherboard.
>
> I doubt there is anything to look at inside
> that modem. If the flash chip was socketed,
> you would have a remote possibility of
> taking the chip somewhere and having it
> flashed. But then, you'd also need a "plaintext"
> flash file to do that with. And know what address
> to flash it at.
>
> Paul

Paul

July 18th 15, 06:48 PM

Adam wrote:

> This post/response shows up in another location in the thread because
> my mail client complained about the header being too long and
> would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.
>
> If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
> So, I think it may be worth a try.
>
> I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
> a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
> What is the best one that can be had for cheap?

If the modem will not give "OK" in response to "AT",
I can't see how a flash attempt over that link is
going to work.

I don't think the modem has enough RAM to "eat" the entire
flash image, without needing a protocol to throttle delivery.
The flash is going to have to be done in blocks.

EPROM 256k
RAM 32k

It's likely to be doing the flash, in smaller
blocks, like maybe 8KB at a time. And the modem
would need to ACK or NACK the transfer, as each
block is done. Usually, processes like this are
protected by checksums, and retransmission requested
if corruption is evident.

As for the contents of the flash, the flash could
be set up logically, into more than one module.
There could be an executive code (that manages
the modem), and a DSP block (what needs updating
for V92). So we don't even have the assurance that
the whole thing gets updated.

*******

You'll notice in my bring-up attempt, I started
with a computer to computer (null modem cable)
RS232 test case. Typing in one Hyperterm window
and verifying the output showed up in the
other Hyperterm window. I did that to verify
the TX and RX were working on the test
computer, before blaming the modem for
not working.

You may want to "buzz out" your serial first,
using a technique like that. Test the serial.
If a single computer has two RS232 ports, you can
loop a null modem cable from one to the other and test.
Or, two computers, each with a single RS232 can be used.

I keep a "RS232 connector bag" here, in which
I keep 9 to 25, 25 male to male, 25 pin null modem
dongle, two cables, and assorted bits and pieces.
That allows me to connect any two pieces of hardware
via RS232. You have to build up a pretty expensive
collection of crap like that, to be ready for
any scenario. I'm still missing some connector
combos, but in the year 2015, it probably doesn't
matter any more. I still occasionally use the RS232
link between computers, for "debugging frozen computers",
so I won't be throwing out the bag of connectors any
time soon.

*******
Ghetto Blaster ??? (Scratches head)

Didn't those disappear a couple decades ago ?

All the cool kids wear headphones or buds now.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 18th 15, 08:09 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>
>> This post/response shows up in another location in the thread because
>> my mail client complained about the header being too long and
>> would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.
>>
>> If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
>> So, I think it may be worth a try.
>>
>> I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
>> a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
>> What is the best one that can be had for cheap?
>
> If the modem will not give "OK" in response to "AT",
> I can't see how a flash attempt over that link is
> going to work.
>
> I don't think the modem has enough RAM to "eat" the entire
> flash image, without needing a protocol to throttle delivery.
> The flash is going to have to be done in blocks.
>
> EPROM 256k
> RAM 32k
>
> It's likely to be doing the flash, in smaller
> blocks, like maybe 8KB at a time. And the modem
> would need to ACK or NACK the transfer, as each
> block is done. Usually, processes like this are
> protected by checksums, and retransmission requested
> if corruption is evident.
>
> As for the contents of the flash, the flash could
> be set up logically, into more than one module.
> There could be an executive code (that manages
> the modem), and a DSP block (what needs updating
> for V92). So we don't even have the assurance that
> the whole thing gets updated.
>

Okay, forget the firmware update idea.

> *******
>
> You'll notice in my bring-up attempt, I started
> with a computer to computer (null modem cable)
> RS232 test case. Typing in one Hyperterm window
> and verifying the output showed up in the
> other Hyperterm window. I did that to verify
> the TX and RX were working on the test
> computer, before blaming the modem for
> not working.
>

This laptop has been through all that (TX / RX between two computers) before
so
I'm confident the computer is fine.

Besides, both (older and newer) laptop give the same unresponsive modem
result.
The older laptop had a physical serial port and Windows host as well.
Can both laptops be bad/wrong? Chances are very low.

> You may want to "buzz out" your serial first,
> using a technique like that. Test the serial.
> If a single computer has two RS232 ports, you can
> loop a null modem cable from one to the other and test.
> Or, two computers, each with a single RS232 can be used.
>

Been there, done that. Just not recently.

> I keep a "RS232 connector bag" here, in which
> I keep 9 to 25, 25 male to male, 25 pin null modem
> dongle, two cables, and assorted bits and pieces.
> That allows me to connect any two pieces of hardware
> via RS232. You have to build up a pretty expensive
> collection of crap like that, to be ready for
> any scenario. I'm still missing some connector
> combos, but in the year 2015, it probably doesn't
> matter any more. I still occasionally use the RS232
> link between computers, for "debugging frozen computers",
> so I won't be throwing out the bag of connectors any
> time soon.
>
> *******
>
> Ghetto Blaster ??? (Scratches head)
>

Guru Paul scratches head? Impossible!!

> Didn't those disappear a couple decades ago ?
>
> All the cool kids wear headphones or buds now.
>
> Paul

I know but those individual listening devices won't work for sharing
purposes.
Nor will they be "loud" enough. Yep, I need to be able to blast a block.
:-)

Anyone know?

Paul

July 18th 15, 09:55 PM

Adam wrote:
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>
>>> This post/response shows up in another location in the thread because
>>> my mail client complained about the header being too long and
>>> would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.
>>>
>>> If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
>>> So, I think it may be worth a try.
>>>
>>> I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
>>> a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
>>> What is the best one that can be had for cheap?
>> If the modem will not give "OK" in response to "AT",
>> I can't see how a flash attempt over that link is
>> going to work.
>>
>> I don't think the modem has enough RAM to "eat" the entire
>> flash image, without needing a protocol to throttle delivery.
>> The flash is going to have to be done in blocks.
>>
>> EPROM 256k
>> RAM 32k
>>
>> It's likely to be doing the flash, in smaller
>> blocks, like maybe 8KB at a time. And the modem
>> would need to ACK or NACK the transfer, as each
>> block is done. Usually, processes like this are
>> protected by checksums, and retransmission requested
>> if corruption is evident.
>>
>> As for the contents of the flash, the flash could
>> be set up logically, into more than one module.
>> There could be an executive code (that manages
>> the modem), and a DSP block (what needs updating
>> for V92). So we don't even have the assurance that
>> the whole thing gets updated.
>>
>
> Okay, forget the firmware update idea.
>
>
>> *******
>>
>> You'll notice in my bring-up attempt, I started
>> with a computer to computer (null modem cable)
>> RS232 test case. Typing in one Hyperterm window
>> and verifying the output showed up in the
>> other Hyperterm window. I did that to verify
>> the TX and RX were working on the test
>> computer, before blaming the modem for
>> not working.
>>
>
> This laptop has been through all that (TX / RX between two computers) before
> so
> I'm confident the computer is fine.
>
> Besides, both (older and newer) laptop give the same unresponsive modem
> result.
> The older laptop had a physical serial port and Windows host as well.
> Can both laptops be bad/wrong? Chances are very low.
>
>
>> You may want to "buzz out" your serial first,
>> using a technique like that. Test the serial.
>> If a single computer has two RS232 ports, you can
>> loop a null modem cable from one to the other and test.
>> Or, two computers, each with a single RS232 can be used.
>>
>
> Been there, done that. Just not recently.
>
>
>> I keep a "RS232 connector bag" here, in which
>> I keep 9 to 25, 25 male to male, 25 pin null modem
>> dongle, two cables, and assorted bits and pieces.
>> That allows me to connect any two pieces of hardware
>> via RS232. You have to build up a pretty expensive
>> collection of crap like that, to be ready for
>> any scenario. I'm still missing some connector
>> combos, but in the year 2015, it probably doesn't
>> matter any more. I still occasionally use the RS232
>> link between computers, for "debugging frozen computers",
>> so I won't be throwing out the bag of connectors any
>> time soon.
>>
>> *******
>>
>> Ghetto Blaster ??? (Scratches head)
>>
>
> Guru Paul scratches head? Impossible!!
>
>
>> Didn't those disappear a couple decades ago ?
>>
>> All the cool kids wear headphones or buds now.
>>
>> Paul
>
> I know but those individual listening devices won't work for sharing
> purposes.
> Nor will they be "loud" enough. Yep, I need to be able to blast a block.
> :-)
>
> Anyone know?
>
>

Try "battery-powered stereo amp"
as a search term.

This silly thing only takes AA batteries.

http://www.amazon.com/Roland-Street-Two-Channel-Battery-Powered-Amplifier/dp/B000XALFYW/ref=sr_1_2/181-5282028-3897467

Now, this one takes 8 D cells. And they're brutally honest
about the power output. 4 W + 4 W treble, 10% distortion.
12W on the center speaker at 10% distortion. Frequency response
starts at 200Hz :-) HaHaHa.

http://store.sony.com/bluetooth-boombox-with-nfc-zid27-ZSBTG900/cat-27-catid-All-iPod-Clocks-Speaker-Docks

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 18th 15, 10:34 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>
>>>> This post/response shows up in another location in the thread because
>>>> my mail client complained about the header being too long and
>>>> would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.
>>>>
>>>> If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
>>>> So, I think it may be worth a try.
>>>>
>>>> I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
>>>> a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
>>>> What is the best one that can be had for cheap?
>>> If the modem will not give "OK" in response to "AT",
>>> I can't see how a flash attempt over that link is
>>> going to work.
>>>
>>> I don't think the modem has enough RAM to "eat" the entire
>>> flash image, without needing a protocol to throttle delivery.
>>> The flash is going to have to be done in blocks.
>>>
>>> EPROM 256k
>>> RAM 32k
>>>
>>> It's likely to be doing the flash, in smaller
>>> blocks, like maybe 8KB at a time. And the modem
>>> would need to ACK or NACK the transfer, as each
>>> block is done. Usually, processes like this are
>>> protected by checksums, and retransmission requested
>>> if corruption is evident.
>>>
>>> As for the contents of the flash, the flash could
>>> be set up logically, into more than one module.
>>> There could be an executive code (that manages
>>> the modem), and a DSP block (what needs updating
>>> for V92). So we don't even have the assurance that
>>> the whole thing gets updated.
>>>
>>
>> Okay, forget the firmware update idea.
>>
>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> You'll notice in my bring-up attempt, I started
>>> with a computer to computer (null modem cable)
>>> RS232 test case. Typing in one Hyperterm window
>>> and verifying the output showed up in the
>>> other Hyperterm window. I did that to verify
>>> the TX and RX were working on the test
>>> computer, before blaming the modem for
>>> not working.
>>>
>>
>> This laptop has been through all that (TX / RX between two computers)
>> before so
>> I'm confident the computer is fine.
>>
>> Besides, both (older and newer) laptop give the same unresponsive modem
>> result.
>> The older laptop had a physical serial port and Windows host as well.
>> Can both laptops be bad/wrong? Chances are very low.
>>
>>
>>> You may want to "buzz out" your serial first,
>>> using a technique like that. Test the serial.
>>> If a single computer has two RS232 ports, you can
>>> loop a null modem cable from one to the other and test.
>>> Or, two computers, each with a single RS232 can be used.
>>>
>>
>> Been there, done that. Just not recently.
>>
>>
>>> I keep a "RS232 connector bag" here, in which
>>> I keep 9 to 25, 25 male to male, 25 pin null modem
>>> dongle, two cables, and assorted bits and pieces.
>>> That allows me to connect any two pieces of hardware
>>> via RS232. You have to build up a pretty expensive
>>> collection of crap like that, to be ready for
>>> any scenario. I'm still missing some connector
>>> combos, but in the year 2015, it probably doesn't
>>> matter any more. I still occasionally use the RS232
>>> link between computers, for "debugging frozen computers",
>>> so I won't be throwing out the bag of connectors any
>>> time soon.
>>>
>>> *******
>>>
>>> Ghetto Blaster ??? (Scratches head)
>>>
>>
>> Guru Paul scratches head? Impossible!!
>>
>>
>>> Didn't those disappear a couple decades ago ?
>>>
>>> All the cool kids wear headphones or buds now.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>
>> I know but those individual listening devices won't work for sharing
>> purposes.
>> Nor will they be "loud" enough. Yep, I need to be able to blast a block.
>> :-)
>>
>> Anyone know?
>>
>
> Try "battery-powered stereo amp"
> as a search term.
>
> This silly thing only takes AA batteries.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Roland-Street-Two-Channel-Battery-Powered-Amplifier/dp/B000XALFYW/ref=sr_1_2/181-5282028-3897467
>
> Now, this one takes 8 D cells. And they're brutally honest
> about the power output. 4 W + 4 W treble, 10% distortion.
> 12W on the center speaker at 10% distortion. Frequency response
> starts at 200Hz :-) HaHaHa.
>
> http://store.sony.com/bluetooth-boombox-with-nfc-zid27-ZSBTG900/cat-27-catid-All-iPod-Clocks-Speaker-Docks
>
> Paul

Interesting solution. Not quite sure how to attach one of these to
the computer's audio output yet though. Will have to find the user manual.
Also, they're not cheap.

Adam[_5_]

July 19th 15, 08:17 AM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This post/response shows up in another location in the thread because
>>>>> my mail client complained about the header being too long and
>>>>> would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
>>>>> So, I think it may be worth a try.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
>>>>> a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
>>>>> What is the best one that can be had for cheap?
>>>> If the modem will not give "OK" in response to "AT",
>>>> I can't see how a flash attempt over that link is
>>>> going to work.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think the modem has enough RAM to "eat" the entire
>>>> flash image, without needing a protocol to throttle delivery.
>>>> The flash is going to have to be done in blocks.
>>>>
>>>> EPROM 256k
>>>> RAM 32k
>>>>
>>>> It's likely to be doing the flash, in smaller
>>>> blocks, like maybe 8KB at a time. And the modem
>>>> would need to ACK or NACK the transfer, as each
>>>> block is done. Usually, processes like this are
>>>> protected by checksums, and retransmission requested
>>>> if corruption is evident.
>>>>
>>>> As for the contents of the flash, the flash could
>>>> be set up logically, into more than one module.
>>>> There could be an executive code (that manages
>>>> the modem), and a DSP block (what needs updating
>>>> for V92). So we don't even have the assurance that
>>>> the whole thing gets updated.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Okay, forget the firmware update idea.
>>>
>>>
>>>> *******
>>>>
>>>> You'll notice in my bring-up attempt, I started
>>>> with a computer to computer (null modem cable)
>>>> RS232 test case. Typing in one Hyperterm window
>>>> and verifying the output showed up in the
>>>> other Hyperterm window. I did that to verify
>>>> the TX and RX were working on the test
>>>> computer, before blaming the modem for
>>>> not working.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This laptop has been through all that (TX / RX between two computers)
>>> before so
>>> I'm confident the computer is fine.
>>>
>>> Besides, both (older and newer) laptop give the same unresponsive modem
>>> result.
>>> The older laptop had a physical serial port and Windows host as well.
>>> Can both laptops be bad/wrong? Chances are very low.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You may want to "buzz out" your serial first,
>>>> using a technique like that. Test the serial.
>>>> If a single computer has two RS232 ports, you can
>>>> loop a null modem cable from one to the other and test.
>>>> Or, two computers, each with a single RS232 can be used.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Been there, done that. Just not recently.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I keep a "RS232 connector bag" here, in which
>>>> I keep 9 to 25, 25 male to male, 25 pin null modem
>>>> dongle, two cables, and assorted bits and pieces.
>>>> That allows me to connect any two pieces of hardware
>>>> via RS232. You have to build up a pretty expensive
>>>> collection of crap like that, to be ready for
>>>> any scenario. I'm still missing some connector
>>>> combos, but in the year 2015, it probably doesn't
>>>> matter any more. I still occasionally use the RS232
>>>> link between computers, for "debugging frozen computers",
>>>> so I won't be throwing out the bag of connectors any
>>>> time soon.
>>>>
>>>> *******
>>>>
>>>> Ghetto Blaster ??? (Scratches head)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Guru Paul scratches head? Impossible!!
>>>
>>>
>>>> Didn't those disappear a couple decades ago ?
>>>>
>>>> All the cool kids wear headphones or buds now.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> I know but those individual listening devices won't work for sharing
>>> purposes.
>>> Nor will they be "loud" enough. Yep, I need to be able to blast a
>>> block. :-)
>>>
>>> Anyone know?
>>>
>>
>> Try "battery-powered stereo amp"
>> as a search term.
>>
>> This silly thing only takes AA batteries.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Roland-Street-Two-Channel-Battery-Powered-Amplifier/dp/B000XALFYW/ref=sr_1_2/181-5282028-3897467
>>

That's one LOUD amp (saw it on YT). Nice!!

Since I don't quite need it THAT LOUD and
I do need to worry about theft (it would really hurt if
someone were to walk off with it), I'm thinking about
one of their smaller/cheaper models. But, it's confusing because
there are so many different models (like GX vs XL vs other).
Thinking about M-CUBE-GX vs CUBE-10GX vs CUBE-20GX.
Hmmm...

>> Now, this one takes 8 D cells. And they're brutally honest
>> about the power output. 4 W + 4 W treble, 10% distortion.
>> 12W on the center speaker at 10% distortion. Frequency response
>> starts at 200Hz :-) HaHaHa.
>>
>> http://store.sony.com/bluetooth-boombox-with-nfc-zid27-ZSBTG900/cat-27-catid-All-iPod-Clocks-Speaker-Docks
>>
>> Paul
>
> Interesting solution. Not quite sure how to attach one of these to
> the computer's audio output yet though. Will have to find the user
> manual.
> Also, they're not cheap.

Paul

July 19th 15, 09:05 AM

Adam wrote:
> "Adam" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Adam wrote:
>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This post/response shows up in another location in the thread because
>>>>>> my mail client complained about the header being too long and
>>>>>> would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
>>>>>> So, I think it may be worth a try.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
>>>>>> a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
>>>>>> What is the best one that can be had for cheap?
>>>>> If the modem will not give "OK" in response to "AT",
>>>>> I can't see how a flash attempt over that link is
>>>>> going to work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think the modem has enough RAM to "eat" the entire
>>>>> flash image, without needing a protocol to throttle delivery.
>>>>> The flash is going to have to be done in blocks.
>>>>>
>>>>> EPROM 256k
>>>>> RAM 32k
>>>>>
>>>>> It's likely to be doing the flash, in smaller
>>>>> blocks, like maybe 8KB at a time. And the modem
>>>>> would need to ACK or NACK the transfer, as each
>>>>> block is done. Usually, processes like this are
>>>>> protected by checksums, and retransmission requested
>>>>> if corruption is evident.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for the contents of the flash, the flash could
>>>>> be set up logically, into more than one module.
>>>>> There could be an executive code (that manages
>>>>> the modem), and a DSP block (what needs updating
>>>>> for V92). So we don't even have the assurance that
>>>>> the whole thing gets updated.
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, forget the firmware update idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> *******
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll notice in my bring-up attempt, I started
>>>>> with a computer to computer (null modem cable)
>>>>> RS232 test case. Typing in one Hyperterm window
>>>>> and verifying the output showed up in the
>>>>> other Hyperterm window. I did that to verify
>>>>> the TX and RX were working on the test
>>>>> computer, before blaming the modem for
>>>>> not working.
>>>>>
>>>> This laptop has been through all that (TX / RX between two computers)
>>>> before so
>>>> I'm confident the computer is fine.
>>>>
>>>> Besides, both (older and newer) laptop give the same unresponsive modem
>>>> result.
>>>> The older laptop had a physical serial port and Windows host as well.
>>>> Can both laptops be bad/wrong? Chances are very low.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You may want to "buzz out" your serial first,
>>>>> using a technique like that. Test the serial.
>>>>> If a single computer has two RS232 ports, you can
>>>>> loop a null modem cable from one to the other and test.
>>>>> Or, two computers, each with a single RS232 can be used.
>>>>>
>>>> Been there, done that. Just not recently.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I keep a "RS232 connector bag" here, in which
>>>>> I keep 9 to 25, 25 male to male, 25 pin null modem
>>>>> dongle, two cables, and assorted bits and pieces.
>>>>> That allows me to connect any two pieces of hardware
>>>>> via RS232. You have to build up a pretty expensive
>>>>> collection of crap like that, to be ready for
>>>>> any scenario. I'm still missing some connector
>>>>> combos, but in the year 2015, it probably doesn't
>>>>> matter any more. I still occasionally use the RS232
>>>>> link between computers, for "debugging frozen computers",
>>>>> so I won't be throwing out the bag of connectors any
>>>>> time soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> *******
>>>>>
>>>>> Ghetto Blaster ??? (Scratches head)
>>>>>
>>>> Guru Paul scratches head? Impossible!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Didn't those disappear a couple decades ago ?
>>>>>
>>>>> All the cool kids wear headphones or buds now.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>> I know but those individual listening devices won't work for sharing
>>>> purposes.
>>>> Nor will they be "loud" enough. Yep, I need to be able to blast a
>>>> block. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know?
>>>>
>>> Try "battery-powered stereo amp"
>>> as a search term.
>>>
>>> This silly thing only takes AA batteries.
>>>
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Roland-Street-Two-Channel-Battery-Powered-Amplifier/dp/B000XALFYW/ref=sr_1_2/181-5282028-3897467
>>>
>
> That's one LOUD amp (saw it on YT). Nice!!
>
> Since I don't quite need it THAT LOUD and
> I do need to worry about theft (it would really hurt if
> someone were to walk off with it), I'm thinking about
> one of their smaller/cheaper models. But, it's confusing because
> there are so many different models (like GX vs XL vs other).
> Thinking about M-CUBE-GX vs CUBE-10GX vs CUBE-20GX.
> Hmmm...
>
>
>>> Now, this one takes 8 D cells. And they're brutally honest
>>> about the power output. 4 W + 4 W treble, 10% distortion.
>>> 12W on the center speaker at 10% distortion. Frequency response
>>> starts at 200Hz :-) HaHaHa.
>>>
>>> http://store.sony.com/bluetooth-boombox-with-nfc-zid27-ZSBTG900/cat-27-catid-All-iPod-Clocks-Speaker-Docks
>>>
>>> Paul
>> Interesting solution. Not quite sure how to attach one of these to
>> the computer's audio output yet though. Will have to find the user
>> manual.
>> Also, they're not cheap.
>
>

The specs for the Roland, don't sound that power-draining.

http://www.rolandus.com/products/cube_street/#specifications/

Rated Power Output 2.5 W + 2.5 W
Power Supply
DC 9 V: AC Adaptor or Dry Battery (LR6 (AA) type)(optional) x 6
Current Draw 235 mA

And 9V * 0.235A, does not give 5W.

The numbers for the Sony look better. That's
if you believe any of the numbers you've
seen so far :-)

They also make "Job Site" boom boxes, but the ones
I've seen at Home Depot aren't all that impressive
looking. Some of those use the power packs that
the other power tool lines use. So at least you've
got something other than disposable alkaline for
a power source.

Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 19th 15, 12:41 PM

"Paul" > wrote in message
...
> Adam wrote:
>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This post/response shows up in another location in the thread
>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>> my mail client complained about the header being too long and
>>>>>>> would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
>>>>>>> So, I think it may be worth a try.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
>>>>>>> a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
>>>>>>> What is the best one that can be had for cheap?
>>>>>> If the modem will not give "OK" in response to "AT",
>>>>>> I can't see how a flash attempt over that link is
>>>>>> going to work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think the modem has enough RAM to "eat" the entire
>>>>>> flash image, without needing a protocol to throttle delivery.
>>>>>> The flash is going to have to be done in blocks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> EPROM 256k
>>>>>> RAM 32k
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's likely to be doing the flash, in smaller
>>>>>> blocks, like maybe 8KB at a time. And the modem
>>>>>> would need to ACK or NACK the transfer, as each
>>>>>> block is done. Usually, processes like this are
>>>>>> protected by checksums, and retransmission requested
>>>>>> if corruption is evident.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for the contents of the flash, the flash could
>>>>>> be set up logically, into more than one module.
>>>>>> There could be an executive code (that manages
>>>>>> the modem), and a DSP block (what needs updating
>>>>>> for V92). So we don't even have the assurance that
>>>>>> the whole thing gets updated.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, forget the firmware update idea.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll notice in my bring-up attempt, I started
>>>>>> with a computer to computer (null modem cable)
>>>>>> RS232 test case. Typing in one Hyperterm window
>>>>>> and verifying the output showed up in the
>>>>>> other Hyperterm window. I did that to verify
>>>>>> the TX and RX were working on the test
>>>>>> computer, before blaming the modem for
>>>>>> not working.
>>>>>>
>>>>> This laptop has been through all that (TX / RX between two computers)
>>>>> before so
>>>>> I'm confident the computer is fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, both (older and newer) laptop give the same unresponsive
>>>>> modem result.
>>>>> The older laptop had a physical serial port and Windows host as well.
>>>>> Can both laptops be bad/wrong? Chances are very low.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You may want to "buzz out" your serial first,
>>>>>> using a technique like that. Test the serial.
>>>>>> If a single computer has two RS232 ports, you can
>>>>>> loop a null modem cable from one to the other and test.
>>>>>> Or, two computers, each with a single RS232 can be used.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Been there, done that. Just not recently.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I keep a "RS232 connector bag" here, in which
>>>>>> I keep 9 to 25, 25 male to male, 25 pin null modem
>>>>>> dongle, two cables, and assorted bits and pieces.
>>>>>> That allows me to connect any two pieces of hardware
>>>>>> via RS232. You have to build up a pretty expensive
>>>>>> collection of crap like that, to be ready for
>>>>>> any scenario. I'm still missing some connector
>>>>>> combos, but in the year 2015, it probably doesn't
>>>>>> matter any more. I still occasionally use the RS232
>>>>>> link between computers, for "debugging frozen computers",
>>>>>> so I won't be throwing out the bag of connectors any
>>>>>> time soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ghetto Blaster ??? (Scratches head)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Guru Paul scratches head? Impossible!!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Didn't those disappear a couple decades ago ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the cool kids wear headphones or buds now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>> I know but those individual listening devices won't work for sharing
>>>>> purposes.
>>>>> Nor will they be "loud" enough. Yep, I need to be able to blast a
>>>>> block. :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyone know?
>>>>>
>>>> Try "battery-powered stereo amp"
>>>> as a search term.
>>>>
>>>> This silly thing only takes AA batteries.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Roland-Street-Two-Channel-Battery-Powered-Amplifier/dp/B000XALFYW/ref=sr_1_2/181-5282028-3897467
>>>>
>>
>> That's one LOUD amp (saw it on YT). Nice!!
>>
>> Since I don't quite need it THAT LOUD and
>> I do need to worry about theft (it would really hurt if
>> someone were to walk off with it), I'm thinking about
>> one of their smaller/cheaper models. But, it's confusing because
>> there are so many different models (like GX vs XL vs other).
>> Thinking about M-CUBE-GX vs CUBE-10GX vs CUBE-20GX.
>> Hmmm...
>>
>>
>>>> Now, this one takes 8 D cells. And they're brutally honest
>>>> about the power output. 4 W + 4 W treble, 10% distortion.
>>>> 12W on the center speaker at 10% distortion. Frequency response
>>>> starts at 200Hz :-) HaHaHa.
>>>>
>>>> http://store.sony.com/bluetooth-boombox-with-nfc-zid27-ZSBTG900/cat-27-catid-All-iPod-Clocks-Speaker-Docks
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>
>>> Interesting solution. Not quite sure how to attach one of these to
>>> the computer's audio output yet though. Will have to find the user
>>> manual.
>>> Also, they're not cheap.
>>
>
> The specs for the Roland, don't sound that power-draining.
>

Most devices designed to run off of batteries is
designed with low-power in mind.
So, I'm not surprised.

Since you mention power-drain, my new desktop is a serious power-drain.
Ever since I got it up and running, my PG&E bill has practically doubled.
I'll have to figure out how to get it to automatically shutdown after
a certain period of inactivity. I know it's better for longevity to
keep computers powered ON. But, <sigh>.
Or, maybe I should try a less powerful PSU.

> http://www.rolandus.com/products/cube_street/#specifications/
>
> Rated Power Output 2.5 W + 2.5 W
> Power Supply
> DC 9 V: AC Adaptor or Dry Battery (LR6 (AA) type)(optional) x 6
> Current Draw 235 mA
>
> And 9V * 0.235A, does not give 5W.
>
> The numbers for the Sony look better. That's
> if you believe any of the numbers you've
> seen so far :-)
>

I thought the Roland CUBEs were so cool that
I forgot about boomboxes. :-)
But, seriously, most videos I saw showcased the instrument channel.
Whereas, I would mostly use the STEREO AUX IN,
which I wish were showcased more.

> They also make "Job Site" boom boxes, but the ones
> I've seen at Home Depot aren't all that impressive
> looking. Some of those use the power packs that
> the other power tool lines use. So at least you've
> got something other than disposable alkaline for
> a power source.
>
> Paul

Adam[_5_]

July 20th 15, 02:44 AM

"Adam" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Adam wrote:
>>> "Adam" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>> "Paul" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Adam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This post/response shows up in another location in the thread
>>>>>>>> because
>>>>>>>> my mail client complained about the header being too long and
>>>>>>>> would not send. This is where you first mention 5686 modem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If it's already bricked, flashing can't make things worse. :-)
>>>>>>>> So, I think it may be worth a try.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have an unrelated question, I am looking for
>>>>>>>> a quality old style portable ghetto blaster with a 5-pin DIN.
>>>>>>>> What is the best one that can be had for cheap?
>>>>>>> If the modem will not give "OK" in response to "AT",
>>>>>>> I can't see how a flash attempt over that link is
>>>>>>> going to work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think the modem has enough RAM to "eat" the entire
>>>>>>> flash image, without needing a protocol to throttle delivery.
>>>>>>> The flash is going to have to be done in blocks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> EPROM 256k
>>>>>>> RAM 32k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's likely to be doing the flash, in smaller
>>>>>>> blocks, like maybe 8KB at a time. And the modem
>>>>>>> would need to ACK or NACK the transfer, as each
>>>>>>> block is done. Usually, processes like this are
>>>>>>> protected by checksums, and retransmission requested
>>>>>>> if corruption is evident.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for the contents of the flash, the flash could
>>>>>>> be set up logically, into more than one module.
>>>>>>> There could be an executive code (that manages
>>>>>>> the modem), and a DSP block (what needs updating
>>>>>>> for V92). So we don't even have the assurance that
>>>>>>> the whole thing gets updated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay, forget the firmware update idea.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You'll notice in my bring-up attempt, I started
>>>>>>> with a computer to computer (null modem cable)
>>>>>>> RS232 test case. Typing in one Hyperterm window
>>>>>>> and verifying the output showed up in the
>>>>>>> other Hyperterm window. I did that to verify
>>>>>>> the TX and RX were working on the test
>>>>>>> computer, before blaming the modem for
>>>>>>> not working.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This laptop has been through all that (TX / RX between two computers)
>>>>>> before so
>>>>>> I'm confident the computer is fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, both (older and newer) laptop give the same unresponsive
>>>>>> modem result.
>>>>>> The older laptop had a physical serial port and Windows host as well.
>>>>>> Can both laptops be bad/wrong? Chances are very low.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You may want to "buzz out" your serial first,
>>>>>>> using a technique like that. Test the serial.
>>>>>>> If a single computer has two RS232 ports, you can
>>>>>>> loop a null modem cable from one to the other and test.
>>>>>>> Or, two computers, each with a single RS232 can be used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Been there, done that. Just not recently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I keep a "RS232 connector bag" here, in which
>>>>>>> I keep 9 to 25, 25 male to male, 25 pin null modem
>>>>>>> dongle, two cables, and assorted bits and pieces.
>>>>>>> That allows me to connect any two pieces of hardware
>>>>>>> via RS232. You have to build up a pretty expensive
>>>>>>> collection of crap like that, to be ready for
>>>>>>> any scenario. I'm still missing some connector
>>>>>>> combos, but in the year 2015, it probably doesn't
>>>>>>> matter any more. I still occasionally use the RS232
>>>>>>> link between computers, for "debugging frozen computers",
>>>>>>> so I won't be throwing out the bag of connectors any
>>>>>>> time soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *******
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ghetto Blaster ??? (Scratches head)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Guru Paul scratches head? Impossible!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Didn't those disappear a couple decades ago ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All the cool kids wear headphones or buds now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>> I know but those individual listening devices won't work for sharing
>>>>>> purposes.
>>>>>> Nor will they be "loud" enough. Yep, I need to be able to blast a
>>>>>> block. :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyone know?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Try "battery-powered stereo amp"
>>>>> as a search term.
>>>>>
>>>>> This silly thing only takes AA batteries.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Roland-Street-Two-Channel-Battery-Powered-Amplifier/dp/B000XALFYW/ref=sr_1_2/181-5282028-3897467
>>>>>
>>>
>>> That's one LOUD amp (saw it on YT). Nice!!
>>>
>>> Since I don't quite need it THAT LOUD and
>>> I do need to worry about theft (it would really hurt if
>>> someone were to walk off with it), I'm thinking about
>>> one of their smaller/cheaper models. But, it's confusing because
>>> there are so many different models (like GX vs XL vs other).
>>> Thinking about M-CUBE-GX vs CUBE-10GX vs CUBE-20GX.
>>> Hmmm...
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Now, this one takes 8 D cells. And they're brutally honest
>>>>> about the power output. 4 W + 4 W treble, 10% distortion.
>>>>> 12W on the center speaker at 10% distortion. Frequency response
>>>>> starts at 200Hz :-) HaHaHa.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://store.sony.com/bluetooth-boombox-with-nfc-zid27-ZSBTG900/cat-27-catid-All-iPod-Clocks-Speaker-Docks
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>
>>>> Interesting solution. Not quite sure how to attach one of these to
>>>> the computer's audio output yet though. Will have to find the user
>>>> manual.
>>>> Also, they're not cheap.
>>>
>>
>> The specs for the Roland, don't sound that power-draining.
>>
>
> Most devices designed to run off of batteries is
> designed with low-power in mind.
> So, I'm not surprised.
>
> Since you mention power-drain, my new desktop is a serious power-drain.
> Ever since I got it up and running, my PG&E bill has practically doubled.
> I'll have to figure out how to get it to automatically shutdown after
> a certain period of inactivity. I know it's better for longevity to
> keep computers powered ON. But, <sigh>.
> Or, maybe I should try a less powerful PSU.
>
>
>> http://www.rolandus.com/products/cube_street/#specifications/
>>
>> Rated Power Output 2.5 W + 2.5 W
>> Power Supply
>> DC 9 V: AC Adaptor or Dry Battery (LR6 (AA) type)(optional) x 6
>> Current Draw 235 mA
>>
>> And 9V * 0.235A, does not give 5W.
>>
>> The numbers for the Sony look better. That's
>> if you believe any of the numbers you've
>> seen so far :-)
>>
>
> I thought the Roland CUBEs were so cool that
> I forgot about boomboxes. :-)
> But, seriously, most videos I saw showcased the instrument channel.
> Whereas, I would mostly use the STEREO AUX IN,
> which I wish were showcased more.
>

Now I know why they don't showcase the STEREO AUX IN more.
It's because AUX IN does not go through the amp. That's what the guy, at
the music store that sells Roland CUBEs, tells me. Drats!!

Okay, back to the Sony boombox. It looks cool but
I'm not sure how portable it is.

>
>> They also make "Job Site" boom boxes, but the ones
>> I've seen at Home Depot aren't all that impressive
>> looking. Some of those use the power packs that
>> the other power tool lines use. So at least you've
>> got something other than disposable alkaline for
>> a power source.
>>
>> Paul
>