Newsgroups: rec.autos.simulators
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!digex!btnet-peer!btnet!news.netkonect.net!peer.news.nildram.co.uk!peernews.cix.co.uk!cix.compulink.co.uk!usenet
From: pjgtech@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Peter Gagg")
Subject: Re: New Computer System
Message-ID: <F57H6r.G9D@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Organization: n/a
References: <MPG.10fd3e37d0b9110d9898c7@news>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1999 20:06:27 GMT
X-News-Software: Ameol - PC Zone
X-Url: http://www.ameol.com
Lines: 38
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.autos.simulators:68030

In article <MPG.10fd3e37d0b9110d9898c7@news>, j@h.c (John Simmons) 
wrote:

> As far as the modem goes, 56K modems are a scam and are completely 
> usesless (can't connect at higher than 33.6 speeds) if you're more 
> than three miles from your telco switch

Hmmm, have to disagree here I'm afraid, my 56k modem (Pace56k internal 
voice/data/fax) was one of the best buys I ever made, especially for 
on-line gaming? If they are configured correctly, and your ISP can 
handle it (mine can) they *can* use 56k, but only in one direction, 
the other direction uses 33.6k.

Have you patched your modem to v90?

> One last 
> note here - do NOT buy a winmodem or an internal modem.  Winmodems 
> only work under windows and steal CPU cycles during operation (not 
> a good thing for online gaming).

Correct, winmodems are not a good idea for on-line gaming, buy 
otherwise work fine.

> Internal modems are ALWAYS a 
> son0-of-a-bitch to configure and keep working.  I've never had an 
> internal modem that worked as advertised or didn't screw with 
> Win95/98.

Erm, have to disagree with you again here.....
I've always used internal modems (from my very first 2400!!!!!) 
mainly cos they don't take up any extra room or an extra power source.
If you set it up right, an internal modem will work just as good as an 
external one. All mine have worked great, and I've never really had 
any problems with them?

8-)

*Peter*   #:-)
