If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
Ant wrote:
wrote: ... I never connect at 56k. If I get 44K I'm lucky. Most of the time I get around 30K. There is about one mile of old copper cable coming to my house from the pedestal along the road, and the wire coming ot the pedestal is probably also real old. When you live in a rural area, these old wires were only meant to be used for voice telephone. Better than me. Mine were awful at home and college 30 minuts away. Connections were mostly at 26400. Lucky at 31200. It didn't matter where and how good my modems were. Average was about 3kBs for compressed datas in downloads. But you know why that is, right ? Your download max was 33.6, not 56K. A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the other end indicates it doesn't support 56K. The people who run modem pools, can't always afford to upgrade them. There are standards like V.34, V90, and V92. I didn't get V92 here - AFAIK, things stopped here at V90. Also, I couldn't get DSL. I could get IDSL, but that was like 144 Kbs that costed over $100 IIRC back in the 2000s. And then Excite@Home with Adelphia came among. It sucked too until it became DOCSIS complaint and had a complete digital makeover. :/ That was ISDN, and the max there is "2B+D". 2*64K+16K = 144K. With ISDN, you could "take a phone call", and your computer connection would drop to approximately half speed. Which is neat. The deployment of ISDN was delayed enough, it overlapped with ADSL, and thus ISDN couldn't have any momentum. At work, one of my buddies worked on ISDN. He got a reward and a plaque, for finishing the project on time. (Not many of our major projects finished on time :-) ) And he got promoted. Too bad that ISDN didn't sell, and ten years later, when telecoms were interested in installing it, the product was "manufacturer discontinued". Which means we never made any money off it. There was no "production peak". The people in Europe seemed to have access to ISDN, and I vaguely remember some "Fritz modem" being used for the ISDN end. Paul |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
In message , Ant
writes: Some Guy wrote: [] Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's I had a dial-up connection to a university server (Silicon Graphics machine). From there I would do FTP to wustl and other servers to get software. Heh. I used to do those too. My favorite was ftp.cdrom.com for sharewares, playable demos, and DOOM addons! I remember F.O.S.I. - ought to have been malware-infested, but I never had any problems with anything I got from it. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than going to a garage makes you a car." - Laurence J. Peter |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
|
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
In message , Paul
writes: [] But you know why that is, right ? Your download max was 33.6, not 56K. A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the other end indicates it doesn't support 56K. It was only ever 56k for download, basically because the mainframe computer via the telephone system effectively had direct control of the D-A converter in the exchange and could thus generate the waveform, whereas in the upload direction, your computer (MoDem) did not know the sampling instant of the A-D in the exchange, so had to go slow enough (oversimplifying) that waveform detection worked. The people who run modem pools, can't always afford to upgrade them. There are standards like V.34, V90, and V92. I didn't get V92 here - AFAIK, things stopped here at V90. Wasn't the difference between V90 and V92 just a firmware upgrade, not requiring hardware changes? It was all such a Long Time Ago ... (-: [] The deployment of ISDN was delayed enough, it overlapped with ADSL, and thus ISDN couldn't have any momentum. [] The people in Europe seemed to have access to ISDN, and I vaguely remember some "Fritz modem" being used for the ISDN end. Paul I don't think it really got wide use here (UK) - certainly not for home use, and I don't think much for business; (a) it was too expensive, (b) I don't think it was asymmetrical (the A in ADSL, though I gather that's usually omitted in US), which is what most people want. Again, ADSL appeared here too before ISDN had much chance to be introduced. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Going to church doesn't make you a Christian anymore than going to a garage makes you a car." - Laurence J. Peter |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
|
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
|
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , Paul writes: [] But you know why that is, right ? Your download max was 33.6, not 56K. A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the other end indicates it doesn't support 56K. It was only ever 56k for download, basically because the mainframe computer via the telephone system effectively had direct control of the D-A converter in the exchange and could thus generate the waveform, whereas in the upload direction, your computer (MoDem) did not know the sampling instant of the A-D in the exchange, so had to go slow enough (oversimplifying) that waveform detection worked. Didn't FCC only allow up to 53K speed? The people who run modem pools, can't always afford to upgrade them. There are standards like V.34, V90, and V92. I didn't get V92 here - AFAIK, things stopped here at V90. Wasn't the difference between V90 and V92 just a firmware upgrade, not requiring hardware changes? It was all such a Long Time Ago ... (-: I remember some USR Sportster modems could get V92 firmware upgrades. -- Quote of the Week: "I go out of my way to avoid stepping on ants." --Terry McGovern, daughter of Senator George and Eleanor McGovern, subject of the book "Terry by her father" Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site) / /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net | |o o| | \ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit- ( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
Ant wrote:
Didn't FCC only allow up to 53K speed? That's a signal amplitude issue. There is some regulatory limit defined for the phone system. On the one hand, the C.O. may have some limits on launch amplitude. And on the other, telephone receivers have protection devices across the receiver screw terminals. I have some first-hand experience, that at least some telephone company equipment, can put out a fairly high amplitude signal - high enough I have to hold the phone three inches from my head, so I didn't lose an eardrum. The equipment has some "unused capabilities" that show up occasionally when something is mis-configured. A possible explanation might have been crosstalk in cable bundles, but that's just a guess. On a more modern POTS system, the copper section is only 500 feet from your street corner to home, and it's no longer 18000 feet of wire and associated crosstalk. I remember some USR Sportster modems could get V92 firmware upgrades. Yes, you could get firmware, but if the modem pool doesn't do V92, it hardly matters. I think a V92 would drop back to V90 then V.34 and so on, all the way down to 300 baud if you waited long enough. It's backward compatible all the way back to the beginning of computing. If you phoned up one of the old private BBSes, it could well end up running at 300 or 1200. Paul |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
|
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
In message , Ant
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Paul writes: [] But you know why that is, right ? Your download max was 33.6, not 56K. A 56K modem has a fallback to 33.6K protocol, if the modem pool at the other end indicates it doesn't support 56K. It was only ever 56k for download, basically because the mainframe computer via the telephone system effectively had direct control of the D-A converter in the exchange and could thus generate the waveform, whereas in the upload direction, your computer (MoDem) did not know the sampling instant of the A-D in the exchange, so had to go slow enough (oversimplifying) that waveform detection worked. Didn't FCC only allow up to 53K speed? They may have where the FCC reigns (the reason Paul gives is a plausible one). I don't _think_ there was any such limit here (UK) - certainly, this is the first time I can _remember_ seeing the figure of 53. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "If just one child is saved, then we'll have created a police state for the benefit of just one child." |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 03:23:43 -0500, Paul wrote:
Yes, you could get firmware, but if the modem pool doesn't do V92, it hardly matters. I think a V92 would drop back to V90 then V.34 and so on, all the way down to 300 baud if you waited long enough. It's backward compatible all the way back to the beginning of computing. If you phoned up one of the old private BBSes, it could well end up running at 300 or 1200. Paul My first modem was a 1200. I used to use local BBSs. Yet, I could connect to the BBS faster than I can now connect to many websites at 56K. Some sites cant even load anymore, especially the Media News sites. Since they started using HTTPS on almost all sites, my speed has gone down about 50%. Google is even worse. I used to wait maybe 10 seconds when I clicked on www.google.com. Now I wait close to a full minute, using Firefox. I also used to use a browser called "Offbyone". That program would load a webpage in it's most basic form. No scripts, no css, no crap. Just text and pictures. But that no longer works either. It does not load any HTTPS sites. Add to that, almost everytime I load any webpage now, I get repeated warnings saying "can not connect securely". Sometimes they are so bad that I have to sit a weight on my ENTER key, to avoid having to hit the enter key 20 - 50 or 100 times, while a page is loading. It just keeps getting worse and worse trying to use the web. Most of the time I get so frustrated, I just shut off the computer. About the only things that still work are Usenet and Email, and even my email is slower to load than it once was. Personally, I think most of that security is senseless. Yea, if I am using a site such as ebay or amazon, where I have to use a credit card, I want security. But why is security needed to view a Wikipedia page, or use Google? The entire internet is going down the ****ter, if you ask me, and I have friends who say the same. I see a day coming soon, when the only people who can even use the www are those who have brand new compiuters running Windows 10, and costly high speed service. And by then, the internet will be entirely run thru facebook. I personally do not see myself using the internet much longer. I cant get high speed service where I live, dont intend to buy a new computer or use Win10, and refuse to ever allow facebook to steal my identity. On top of that, usenet is almost dead. So, I'm moatly just paying my ISP so I can use email. I can send a text from my cellphone and it does about the same thing...... |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Cloning a 2.5" IDE/PATA Laptop Hard drive
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 21:36:20 -0500, Paul wrote:
As a connoisseur of dialup, I'm sure you know this already. Initially, there were two competing standards. The standards body tried to combine them, making V90. The idea was, you could get a firmware upgrade, to bring your model to V90. X2 ___ \___ V90 K56 ___/ Well, what happened ? Instead of unification, the modem and front end still had to match for best results. This is why I had two modems, a Supra for K56 and a USR for X2. Then, it depended on whether I was dialing into work, or dialing into Freenet, as to which modem worked best. If I used the wrong modem, the result could be the "spiral of death". V90 with an X2 ___ V90 with a K56 ___ The spiral of death, is a kind of negotiation failure. The initial connection might be at 46K (i.e. a bit too high), Over a period of minutes, transmission errors would pile up, and the protocol would seek to adjust the properties to compensate. The effective transmission rate was no longer 46K. It might take around 10 to 15 minutes, but the rate would drop and drop, until there wasn't enough bandwidth to do keep-alive on PPP. And the modem pool would hang up. The protocol did not appear to have any ability to "open the line up again", if line quality improved. It would just go down and down, until the line dropped. Now, the standard the Supra uses, at some point I no longer had any of those to dial into. So the Supra collected dust. I lost my last dialup a couple years ago (Freenet wants at least $25 a year to keep an account on dialup), and I finally put the USR away as well. I used to use FreeNet, to check the ADSL status page at my ISP, when my ADSL wasn't working. It was better to do that, than to phone the support number and listen to Abba for 40 minutes until someone would pick up and tell me how broken things were. You *can* improve your lot in life to 5KB/sec. But the last few times I used dialup, it was a living hell. As even the most innocent web page, is megabytes of crap. Everything ends up taking an hour to do. Tuning up the dialup modem, won't make it heroic. Yea, I know all about the spiral of death issue. That is the main reason I only use Win98 on the internet. Whether it's XP or Windows 2000, both of them suffer badly from that Spiral of death **** badly. But Win98 dont. I spent many hours of time trying to fix this years ago, and it was all a waste of time. I finally just accepted that I will never be able to use dialup with any OS other than Win98. Using Win98 is not a problem in itself, except that I cant use a modern browser and that makes connecting to many of the new websites impossible. I do wonder if getting a different brand of modem would help though. I have always used USR modems. Is the Supra a decent brand? I know that some brands I used many years ago, were crappy modems. One brand that comes to mind is Cardinal. That was a piece of ****. I refuse to even try any more tests and configurations. That nearly drove me bonkers back when I tried. But I might consider buying another modem/brand if that might help. They can often be bought on ebay for little money, since few people use modems any more. I just bought another identical USR modem on ebay for about $15. I just bought it so I have a spare, because I have lost several of them in the past from lightning. But that has not happened lately because I unplug the phone line at all times when I am not using the computer, and if a storm is approaching, I unplug that phone line right away. Does Supra make an external modem? I only use externals and they have to be serial port type, because as you know, USB is lousy on Win98, and I hate internal modems. Once I tried to connect using Linux, and wondered if that would not get the spiral of death, but I am not a Linux person. and never will be. I have a few older versions of Linux on bootable flash drives but that's just for emergency booting of XP is something goes wrong and I need to access my data. As long as I dont have to use the linux command line, I can copy data. But that about all I do with linux. I think a lot of the problems is my ISP. They have pretty much abandoned the dialup, but they know that some of us rural people cant connect any other way. so they keep a few modems running for those of us who have a landline from them. Where I live, I must have a landline because my cellphone dont get a signal. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
dialup problems
|
#60
|
|||
|
|||
dialup problems
On Wed, 15 Nov 2017 15:20:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote: In message , writes: [] I do wonder if getting a different brand of modem would help though. I It might ... [] I think a lot of the problems is my ISP. They have pretty much abandoned the dialup, but they know that some of us rural people cant connect any other way. so they keep a few modems running for those of us who have a ... as long as the "spiral of death" isn't caused by the other end. (I still can't understand why you don't get it with Windows 98, but I sympathise that you're fed up of trying things!) landline from them. Where I live, I must have a landline because my cellphone dont get a signal. Would it be possible to erect some sort of aerial - do cellular signals reach your location but too far above ground level? Or are you so remote that you are not in a coverage area at all? I appreciate it'd be awkward, since modern 'phones don't have an aerial socket, and it'd have to be bidirectional, which makes boosters difficult (though can be done), but if there is a signal, two passive but high-gain (i. e. directional) aerials connected together, in your loft or on a pole, _might_ make life a bit more bearable. Thanks for starting a new thread. I was considering doing the same. I have never understood why Win98 works and not any NT based OS. I still have Win2000 installed on the same computer as Win98. All I use it for is to do backups, because Win98 cant handle those external hard drives on USB. I love Win98, but USB support has always been lousy. By (dual) booting to Win2000, I can copy everything from my HDD to my backup, including the Win98 OS files. I would have XP instead in that partition, but this computer is not quite up to Xp level for power and such. No, I dont get a usable cellphone signal. I live down a hill, cellphone signals are poor to start with, and being downhill from the nearby town, I dont get much. Sometimes I get one bar, but have to go outside (metal covered house). But I know I will lose the signal at any time during the call. Other times I dont get any signal. Most of the time I drive up the hill to make calls. Thats why I keep my landline. In bad weather or an emergency, I rely on that landline. I do not have long distance on that landline, but I can call all local emergency numbers as well as persons or busineesses in the immediate area. I dont make many long dist. calls, but when I do, I do have to go up that hill and use the cellphone. I do think the dialup problem is on the other end (ISP), but that still dont explain why Win98 works and not any NT based OSs. Being rural has it's disadvantages, but I'll accept the technology disadvantages before I'd ever live in a city. The firsdt part of my life was in a city, and I hated it. I know they sell signal boosters for cellphones. I am sure that having an antenna on the roof and a booster could solve the metal house limitations, but I'd still be boosting a very weak signal. The only way to get high speed internet here is a satellite, and that's very costly around here. They sell the whole package, TV, Internet, and other stuff, at a cost of well over $100 per month. I cant afford it, and I do not want the tv part. I have a 40ft tv antenna, and I get enough tv stations to suit me. I mostly just watch ME-TV anyhow. I'm elderly and like the old shows. Modern tv is crap in my opinion. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|