On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Steve Lang wrote:
The point? I no no longer trust the accuracy of Pilot's. The pilot of 5200 went perfectly, the implementation was hell.
Hi Steve; To be fair to Cisco, if I understand your message correctly, your trial did not actually involve the hardware you went live with. You had V.34-only modems, then more-than-V.34 modems, *limited* to V.34. Many modem DSP vendors, right up to when V.34 was most current, wrote their pump and even controller code in assembler. But like most, MICA probably reimplemented that in something like C on their 56K devices, using memory protection and exception handling not available on their older hardware. I've even found pump and controller code written in assembler for TI V.90 modem chipsets dated early '99! Believe or not, a good many central-site and client modem controller/DSP controllers are based on the venerable, heavily licensed MOS tech. 6502. Whenever you rewrite something from scratch, there is risk that you will miss something. Further - depending on how you limit to V.34 on the MICA - there may've been other contributors (like V.34 only with V.8bis left on). Also being fair to Cisco - both 'Flex and V.90 took a long time to mature - even if Cisco's code were perfect, there were plenty of imperfect clients it would've had to deal with. -- Josh Bailey (mailto:joshbailey(a)lucent.com) lucent->ins->software->alameda[CA] /* 1601 Harbor Bay Parkway, Alameda, CA 94502 (room 1601/1108C) voice: +1-510-747-3367 skytel: 1-800-skytel2/mailto:1198428(a)skytel.com */ --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog