🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <30f18712.1246358@news.ic.net>, jwh@oaktree.com says...

>When I connect with this setting, my DTE light stays on which should
>indicate a 128k connection, but througput is more like 64k.  Is there
>something else I need to do on my end to improve the speed of the
>connection?  I've asked my provider for help but they have neven had
>anyone connect with a BitSurfr and they don't know what the problem
>might be.

This underscores the whole question of WHY BOTHER?

You'll NEVER see 128K throughput.  Your SERIAL PORT is limited
to 115,200 bps ASYNC - which equates to 80 Kbps in Synchronous.

So, you're using 2 B channels to go from 64K to 80K maximum.

No surprise here why you don't see much of a difference!

============================================================================
Ed Goldgehn, Sr Vice President/CTO              E-Mail: edg@OCN.Com
Open Communication Networks, Inc.               Voice:  (770) 919-1561
Co-Chair - Mass Markets Ind. Group / North American ISDN Users Forum (NIUF)
Authorized BellSouth Business Systems Data Sales Agent for ISDN Services
============================================================================
For more info about ISDN or to order BellSouth ISDN -  http://www.ocn.com

In message <4cu5na$buh@news1.is.net> - debg@ocn.com (Deb Goldgehn) writes:
:>
:>In article <30f18712.1246358@news.ic.net>, jwh@oaktree.com says...
:>
:>>When I connect with this setting, my DTE light stays on which should
:>>indicate a 128k connection, but througput is more like 64k.  Is there
:>>something else I need to do on my end to improve the speed of the
:>>connection?  I've asked my provider for help but they have neven had
:>>anyone connect with a BitSurfr and they don't know what the problem
:>>might be.
:>
:>This underscores the whole question of WHY BOTHER?
:>
:>You'll NEVER see 128K throughput.  Your SERIAL PORT is limited
:>to 115,200 bps ASYNC - which equates to 80 Kbps in Synchronous.
:>
:>So, you're using 2 B channels to go from 64K to 80K maximum.
:>
:>No surprise here why you don't see much of a difference!

For about $90, you can get a serial coprocessor and eliminate that bottleneck.
I have an ESP from Hayes and lock my port at 230.4K

There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.


                       Gary Hammer,  gary@hammer.org
                      *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
                 OS/2 "Must Have" Utilities List and Links
                       http://www.os2.hammer.org/OS2

In <4cummk$pd5@cornerstone.intergate.net>, gary@hammer.org (Gary Hammer) writes:
>:>So, you're using 2 B channels to go from 64K to 80K maximum.
>:>
>:>No surprise here why you don't see much of a difference!
>
>For about $90, you can get a serial coprocessor and eliminate that bottleneck.
>I have an ESP from Hayes and lock my port at 230.4K
>
>There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.

I would appreciate if you give more details.    Thanks.

  _                          _
 | | ____ _ _   _  __ _     (_)_ __ ___  _ __ ___
 | |/ / _` | | | |/ _` |    | | '_ ` _ \| '__/ _ \
 |   <|(_| | |_| | (_| |    | | | | | | | | |  __/
 |_|\_\__,_|\__, |\__,_|    |_|_| |_| |_|_|  \___|
             __/ |
            |___/      <imre@cims.nyu.edu>

In article <4cummk$pd5@cornerstone.intergate.net>, gary@hammer.org says...
>
>In message <4cu5na$buh@news1.is.net> - edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) writes:
(** Actually, I forgot to take Deb's name off of the config)
>:>This underscores the whole question of WHY BOTHER?
>:>
>For about $90, you can get a serial coprocessor and eliminate that 
>bottleneck.
>I have an ESP from Hayes and lock my port at 230.4K
>
>There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.

A lot of good that does when the Bitsurfr serial port only goes to 115,200 
bps.  Sounds like a waste of $90 to me. :)

============================================================================
Ed Goldgehn, Sr Vice President/CTO              E-Mail: edg@OCN.Com
Open Communication Networks, Inc.               Voice:  (770) 919-1561
Co-Chair - Mass Markets Ind. Group / North American ISDN Users Forum (NIUF)
Authorized BellSouth Business Systems Data Sales Agent for ISDN Services
============================================================================
For more info about ISDN or to order BellSouth ISDN -  http://www.ocn.com

In article <4cu5na$buh@news1.is.net>, debg@ocn.com says...
>
>You'll NEVER see 128K throughput.  Your SERIAL PORT is limited
>to 115,200 bps ASYNC - which equates to 80 Kbps in Synchronous.
>
>So, you're using 2 B channels to go from 64K to 80K maximum.
>
>No surprise here why you don't see much of a difference!

Given as true, why isn't the the 64k ASYNC degraded to 40k SYNC and the 
thruput still twice what it was before?

Jim

In message <4cu5na$buh@news1.is.net> - debg@ocn.com (Deb Goldgehn) writes:
:>
:>In article <30f18712.1246358@news.ic.net>, jwh@oaktree.com says...
:>
:>>When I connect with this setting, my DTE light stays on which should
:>>indicate a 128k connection, but througput is more like 64k.  Is there
:>>something else I need to do on my end to improve the speed of the
:>>connection?  I've asked my provider for help but they have neven had
:>>anyone connect with a BitSurfr and they don't know what the problem
:>>might be.
:>
:>This underscores the whole question of WHY BOTHER?
:>
:>You'll NEVER see 128K throughput.  Your SERIAL PORT is limited
:>to 115,200 bps ASYNC - which equates to 80 Kbps in Synchronous.
:>
:>So, you're using 2 B channels to go from 64K to 80K maximum.
:>
:>No surprise here why you don't see much of a difference!
:>
:
Use the Hayes ESP card and the port ceases to be the bottleneck. I do get 
throughput of well over 128,000.

James W. Howe wrote:

> When I connect with this setting, my DTE light stays on which should
> indicate a 128k connection, but througput is more like 64k.  Is there
> something else I need to do on my end to improve the speed of the
> connection?  I've asked my provider for help but they have neven had
> anyone connect with a BitSurfr and they don't know what the problem
> might be.
> 
> Thanks.

Do you have Rev 1D installed. As you are connecting, watch the DTE 
light. It should blink a few times, go steady as it connects to the 
first number, blink a few times again and go steady as it connects to 
the second. If you have Rev 1D, you can verify a 2B connection by 
lifting up the handset on your POTs phone. The DTE light should blink 
rapidly and then go steady when you hang up the POTs phone.

I am using Win95. I use the configuration manager to set my active 
profile. When in doubt, I verify it with the command AT&V. I then just 
put the command ATZ0 in my extra settings block of the dial up adapter.

I hope this helps.

Bill Coffelt

In article <4cv5a8$ff1@news1.is.net>, jaltman@atty.is.net says...
>
>Given as true, why isn't the the 64k ASYNC degraded to 40k SYNC and the 
>thruput still twice what it was before?

Simple. Operating the serial port at 115,200 with RTS/CTS flow control, both
ends of a 1B connection can completely fill the 64K channel when streaming
data requiring flow control to be used.

============================================================================
Ed Goldgehn, Sr Vice President/CTO              E-Mail: edg@OCN.Com
Open Communication Networks, Inc.               Voice:  (770) 919-1561
Co-Chair - Mass Markets Ind. Group / North American ISDN Users Forum (NIUF)
Authorized BellSouth Business Systems Data Sales Agent for ISDN Services
============================================================================
For more info about ISDN or to order BellSouth ISDN -  http://www.ocn.com

James W. Howe (jwh@oaktree.com) wrote:
: I have just purchased a BitSurfr Pro to go with my newly installed
: ISDN line.  I'm able to connect to my provider at 64k, but I seem
: unable to get 128k to work.  My initialization string looks like this:
: 
: AT&F&C1&D2S0=0%A2=95%A4=0@B0=2@M2=P
: 
: my dial string looks like this:
: 
: ATD111-1111&111-1111
: 
: and my baud rate is set at 115200 and I'm using the SIO drivers.
: 
: When I connect with this setting, my DTE light stays on which should
: indicate a 128k connection, but througput is more like 64k.  Is there
: something else I need to do on my end to improve the speed of the
: connection?  I've asked my provider for help but they have neven had
: anyone connect with a BitSurfr and they don't know what the problem
: might be.

Are you sure your internet provider allows 128 kb connections. mine doesn't.
secondly with your serial speed at 115200 baud a 128000 incoming signal
causes flow control to stop the incoming flow, it can't handle data flows
over 115200. When using IP software the throughput is automatically
adjusted. This would let you stay at 115200 at the most. 
We have tried the 128 kb with two isdn routers and using the second channel
via a bandwith on demand methode.

This means that we start with a 64 kb connection when more data is needed
the second channel is added.  What we saw was the following:

- The connection was estableshed.
- the flow became greater then 64 kb.
- the second channel activated.
- the second channel was active for some seconds and shut down
- the flow was still greater then 64 kb so the second channel came up again.
- this repeated over and over again.

What we think is wrong is the following:

when the dataflow increases the second channel is activated, but in the mean
time the higher layer networking software turns the flow down. so the second
channel is again deactivated.

I don't now what your ISP is using as isdn modem or router.
there may be a compatibility between your and their system.

Jan Verhoeven
janv@iaehv.nl

In message <4cv4rp$fd0@news1.is.net> - edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) writes:
:>
:>In article <4cummk$pd5@cornerstone.intergate.net>, gary@hammer.org says...
:>>
:>>In message <4cu5na$buh@news1.is.net> - edg@ocn.com (Ed Goldgehn) writes:
:>(** Actually, I forgot to take Deb's name off of the config)
:>>:>This underscores the whole question of WHY BOTHER?
:>>:>
:>>For about $90, you can get a serial coprocessor and eliminate that 
:>>bottleneck.
:>>I have an ESP from Hayes and lock my port at 230.4K
:>>
:>>There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.
:>
:>A lot of good that does when the Bitsurfr serial port only goes to 115,200 
:>bps.  Sounds like a waste of $90 to me. :)
:>
:>============================================================================
:>Ed Goldgehn, Sr Vice President/CTO              E-Mail: edg@OCN.Com
:>Open Communication Networks, Inc.               Voice:  (770) 919-1561
:>Co-Chair - Mass Markets Ind. Group / North American ISDN Users Forum (NIUF)
:>Authorized BellSouth Business Systems Data Sales Agent for ISDN Services
:>============================================================================

It's better than the 56K you were insisting a port need be locked at.  And as
I made
no mention of a Bitsurfr, how is it a waste?  I'll bet I could lock the port
at 115.2K,
but hey, what do I care if the computer waits for a CTS?

If you are worried about spending money, I guess most home users should just
sell their  system today because there is no justification for a computer in
the home.  And  especially one connected to the Internet via ISDN.


                       Gary Hammer,  gary@hammer.org
                      *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
                 OS/2 "Must Have" Utilities List and Links
                       http://www.os2.hammer.org/OS2

In article <30F36FE4.676E@spider.lloyd.com>, wcoffelt@spider.lloyd.com says...
>
>James W. Howe wrote:
>
>> When I connect with this setting, my DTE light stays on which should
>> indicate a 128k connection, but througput is more like 64k.  Is there
>> something else I need to do on my end to improve the speed of the
>> connection?  I've asked my provider for help but they have neven had
>> anyone connect with a BitSurfr and they don't know what the problem
>> might be.
>> 
>> Thanks.
>
>Do you have Rev 1D installed. As you are connecting, watch the DTE 
>light. It should blink a few times, go steady as it connects to the 
>first number, blink a few times again and go steady as it connects to 
>the second. If you have Rev 1D, you can verify a 2B connection by 
>lifting up the handset on your POTs phone. The DTE light should blink 
>rapidly and then go steady when you hang up the POTs phone.

     The BitSURFR is very elegant punching in and out the second B
channel.  I enjoy setting up a large transfer, watching the transfer 
speed hit 115kbd, picking up the phone handset, watching the transfer fall
to 70kbd, hanging up the handset, watching it go up to 115kbd again...
I'm amazed at how well it works -- it must be magic.

Dave Cowen (esch@fische.com)
Eschatfische. --------------------------------------- http://www.fische.com

In article <4d297o$66b@daily-planet.execpc.com>, esch@fische.com (Dave
Cowen) wrote:

> In article <30F36FE4.676E@spider.lloyd.com>, wcoffelt@spider.lloyd.com says...
> >
> >Do you have Rev 1D installed. As you are connecting, watch the DTE 
> >light. It should blink a few times, go steady as it connects to the 
> >first number, blink a few times again and go steady as it connects to 
> >the second. 

     Well, mine starts to do that, but the light never goes steady when
calling the second number...  I seem to be having a similar problem as the
guy in the original post.  It seems I can't do bonding because my phone
system isn't properly configured, or maybe I haven't entered the right DN,
SPID, Bonding, and dialing commands... It's really hard to determine the
cause of the problem.  For all I know, my setup could be perfect, but the
server on the other end might be poorly configured.
     If anyone has gone through the hassle of troubleshooting a Bitsurfer
Pro BONDING connection, I'd be interested to hear your suggestions of
things to double-check with the bonding setup.  
     I'm setup with on an AT&T 5ESS Custom switch with a point to point
circuit.  The phone Co assigned me just one DN and one SPID.  I've been
able to configure my box to the point that I can make 64k connections no
problem, but when I try bonded connections I just get the flashing lights,
which time out with a NO CARRIER result.  Any ideas on what I could be
doing wrong?

--Dave
_____________________________________________________________________
David E. Jorgensen                 | "This message is my opinion but
Int'l Quality Assurance Engineer   | may not be the position of 
Global Village Communication, Inc. | Global Village Communication."

In <dave_jorgensen-1101962254220001@gator2dyn31.globalvillag.com>, dave_jorgensen@globalvillage.com (David E. Jorgensen) writes:
>In article <4d297o$66b@daily-planet.execpc.com>, esch@fische.com (Dave
>Cowen) wrote:
>
>> In article <30F36FE4.676E@spider.lloyd.com>, wcoffelt@spider.lloyd.com says...
>> >
>> >Do you have Rev 1D installed. As you are connecting, watch the DTE 
>> >light. It should blink a few times, go steady as it connects to the 
>> >first number, blink a few times again and go steady as it connects to 
>> >the second. 
>
>     Well, mine starts to do that, but the light never goes steady when
>calling the second number...  I seem to be having a similar problem as the
>guy in the original post.  It seems I can't do bonding because my phone
>system isn't properly configured, or maybe I haven't entered the right DN,
>SPID, Bonding, and dialing commands... It's really hard to determine the
>cause of the problem.  For all I know, my setup could be perfect, but the
>server on the other end might be poorly configured.
>     If anyone has gone through the hassle of troubleshooting a Bitsurfer
>Pro BONDING connection, I'd be interested to hear your suggestions of
>things to double-check with the bonding setup.  
>     I'm setup with on an AT&T 5ESS Custom switch with a point to point
>circuit.  The phone Co assigned me just one DN and one SPID.  I've been
>able to configure my box to the point that I can make 64k connections no
>problem, but when I try bonded connections I just get the flashing lights,
>which time out with a NO CARRIER result.  Any ideas on what I could be
>doing wrong?
>
>--Dave
>_____________________________________________________________________
>David E. Jorgensen                 | "This message is my opinion but
>Int'l Quality Assurance Engineer   | may not be the position of 
>Global Village Communication, Inc. | Global Village Communication."
Southwestern Bell has a test lab that I used to connect to test my connectivity and
debug problems by doing a loop back and other things. Try your rboc and see if they
won't do the same for you.

In article <4cummk$pd5@cornerstone.intergate.net>,
 :
:For about $90, you can get a serial coprocessor and eliminate that 
bottleneck.
:I have an ESP from Hayes and lock my port at 230.4K
:
:There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.

What TA goes above 115,200? Do the 3com IMPACTS lock above 115,200?

Darrin "ISDN" Rodriguez
darcom@interport.net

Darcom's Weird World Wide Web Page
http://www.interport.net/~darcom/index.html (HIGH BANDWIDTH)
http://www.interport.net/~darcom/text.html (LOW BANDWIDTH)

BEEPER CLINIC
718-652-4700(WORK)

dave_jorgensen@globalvillage.com (David E. Jorgensen) wrote:

>In article <4d297o$66b@daily-planet.execpc.com>, esch@fische.com (Dave
>Cowen) wrote:

>> In article <30F36FE4.676E@spider.lloyd.com>, wcoffelt@spider.lloyd.com says...
>> >
>> >Do you have Rev 1D installed. As you are connecting, watch the DTE 
>> >light. It should blink a few times, go steady as it connects to the 
>> >first number, blink a few times again and go steady as it connects to 
>> >the second. 

>     Well, mine starts to do that, but the light never goes steady when
>calling the second number...  I seem to be having a similar problem as the
>guy in the original post.  It seems I can't do bonding because my phone
>system isn't properly configured, or maybe I haven't entered the right DN,
>SPID, Bonding, and dialing commands... It's really hard to determine the
>cause of the problem.  For all I know, my setup could be perfect, but the
>server on the other end might be poorly configured.
>     If anyone has gone through the hassle of troubleshooting a Bitsurfer
>Pro BONDING connection, I'd be interested to hear your suggestions of
>things to double-check with the bonding setup.  


	Which ISP do you have service with? 

	(Here at InterNex, we do setups of the Pro all the time on any number
of different platforms with minimal hassle. It's a well-behaved device
in the main, including on 2B operation.)

	If the ref in the header to comp.os.os2.networking is right, and
hence if you're trying to set up Warp with the Pro, it can be done. I
know: I did the initial productization work on this combo for
InterNex's service...

	In any event, this may well be a protocol mismatch. You'll find that
BONDING actually in ISP field deployment is as rare as feed bags for
rocking horses. It's not IETF approved and it requires nasty hardware
hacks to work.

	The preferred industry standard is multilink PPP. Much easier to
implement, and it's cool with the IETF.

	And if you're located at Global Village in Sunnyvale, you're right
down the road from us! If you'd care to switch over here, we'd be
happy to do right by you on the setup :-)



Russ Teasdale
Director of Product Marketing           <russ@internex.net>
InterNex Information Services           <http://www.internex.net>
2302 Walsh Ave.                              <tel: 408-327-2309>
Santa Clara, CA  95051                    <fax: 408-496-5485>

In article <4de5ok$im4@voyager.internex.net>,
Russ Teasdale <russ@internex.net> wrote:
>	Which ISP do you have service with? 
>
>	(Here at InterNex, we do setups of the Pro all the time on any number
>of different platforms with minimal hassle. It's a well-behaved device
>in the main, including on 2B operation.)

	Yeah, I have a Pro working 128Kbps with OS/2 no problem.  Check out
the brief article I did about it on OS/2Ezine at:
		http://www.isisnet.com/haligonian/os2/

>	If the ref in the header to comp.os.os2.networking is right, and
>hence if you're trying to set up Warp with the Pro, it can be done. I
>know: I did the initial productization work on this combo for
>InterNex's service...
>	In any event, this may well be a protocol mismatch. You'll find that
>BONDING actually in ISP field deployment is as rare as feed bags for
>rocking horses. It's not IETF approved and it requires nasty hardware
>hacks to work.
>	The preferred industry standard is multilink PPP. Much easier to
>implement, and it's cool with the IETF.
>	And if you're located at Global Village in Sunnyvale, you're right
>down the road from us! If you'd care to switch over here, we'd be
>happy to do right by you on the setup :-)
>Russ Teasdale
>Director of Product Marketing           <russ@internex.net>
>InterNex Information Services           <http://www.internex.net>
>2302 Walsh Ave.                              <tel: 408-327-2309>
>Santa Clara, CA  95051                    <fax: 408-496-5485>

	Maybe they'll even get your setup right on the first couple of tries!
I've been less than happy with Internex.  First they setup my account on a POP
that was a long distance call in a different area code.  Then, they didn't
setup my Email correctly. After a week of nagging them, it was setup OK, but
my Wife's Email hadn't been setup at all... I finally wrote one of the VP's  
(Robert Berger) and complained straight to him about it.  Told him what I wanted
to be done etc... So 2 days later It's all setup an working, except that
they misspelled my Wife's name in Email.  Never got a response to the Email
I sent about fixing her name (that was like a month ago or more).
	If anybody knows of another ISP with 128Kbps ISDN local to Castro
Valley, EMail me.  Internex needs to do some growing up and learn how to treat
customers properly.

-Tash Hepting
phoenix@surf.internex.com (currently.. May change)
tashh@fpn.com

	My opinions do not reflect the opinions of my employer, First Pacific
Networks.  I only work there.

>In article <4cummk$pd5@cornerstone.intergate.net>,
> :
>:For about $90, you can get a serial coprocessor and eliminate that 
>bottleneck.
>:I have an ESP from Hayes and lock my port at 230.4K
>:
>:There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.

    I just ran across the following URL. Hayes is selling their ESP cards
direct until the end of Jan 96 for $49. These cards have a 1K buffer as
oposed to the 16 byte buffer on an 16550A UART. I've seen several 
references to these cards. This is the first I've heard of the sale. 
The URL is
http://www.hayes.com/esporder.htm

73's  de  Jack   -  kf5mg
Internet / hobby -  kf5mg@kf5mg.ampr.org              - home (817) 488-4386
           work  -  jack@cyberloans.com               - work (214) 516-6270
+=========================================================================+
+     I am Homer of Borg.... prepare to be assim... oooo... Donuts...     +
+=========================================================================+

fpn@netcom.com (First Pacific Network) wrote:


>	Maybe they'll even get your setup right on the first couple of tries!
>I've been less than happy with Internex.  First they setup my account on a POP
>that was a long distance call in a different area code.  Then, they didn't
>setup my Email correctly. After a week of nagging them, it was setup OK, but
>my Wife's Email hadn't been setup at all... I finally wrote one of the VP's  
>(Robert Berger) and complained straight to him about it.  Told him what I wanted
>to be done etc... So 2 days later It's all setup an working, except that
>they misspelled my Wife's name in Email.  Never got a response to the Email
>I sent about fixing her name (that was like a month ago or more).
>	If anybody knows of another ISP with 128Kbps ISDN local to Castro
>Valley, EMail me.  Internex needs to do some growing up and learn how to treat
>customers properly.



	I would hope that the aforementioned experience was atypical. 
Based on the symptoms described, you have every right to complain. 
	
	Allow me to meet your complaint, both for you and for the
edification of the reading audience, both with an explanation, and
with an apology for the inconvenience.

	Every ISP manages to mishandle customers at some time or
another, and we're no exception. However, where we do differ from the
run of the mill ISP is that we do _not_ snootily ignore justified
complaints of this type. This can and will be addressed at once.

	Let me describe what we've just done, and what we will do:

	Your letter was circulated to all senior staff at InterNex, and to the
managers of the departments that handled your order. There will be
immediate accountability for the mishandling.

	If you'll be so good as to inform me of the particulars of your
account, and of how you'd like to have your wife's name correctly
spelled, I will personally make sure that it will be working within
one working day of notification.

	We value you as we value all of our customers, and we'd like
to keep you on board with us. 

	If there's anything further that I can do to square things away and
make your experience as a customer a smooth and pleasant and rewarding
one, please feel at liberty to call me at the telephone number shown
below. That goes straight to my desk, and I promise you that I'll put
you at the head of the queue.
	
	

Russ Teasdale
Director of Product Marketing           <russ@internex.net>
InterNex Information Services           <http://www.internex.net>
2302 Walsh Ave.                              <tel: 408-327-2309>
Santa Clara, CA  95051                    <fax: 408-496-5485>

jack@cyberloans.com writes:

>>In article <4cummk$pd5@cornerstone.intergate.net>,
>> :
>>:For about $90, you can get a serial coprocessor and eliminate that 
>>bottleneck.
>>:I have an ESP from Hayes and lock my port at 230.4K
>>:
>>:There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.

>    I just ran across the following URL. Hayes is selling their ESP cards
>direct until the end of Jan 96 for $49. These cards have a 1K buffer as
>oposed to the 16 byte buffer on an 16550A UART. I've seen several 
>references to these cards. This is the first I've heard of the sale. 
>The URL is
>http://www.hayes.com/esporder.htm

Sounds like they are about to discontinue them.  They already discontinued
the two port card.

BTW: There are NO drivers for Windows NT and no official drivers for 
OS/2.  I don't recommend this card for DOS or NT(at the moment), but
for Windows, its a good deal at $59 ($49 + $10 shipping per card).

Orin.

>>>:There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.
{..}

>Sounds like they are about to discontinue them. They already
>discontinued the two port card.
{..}
>BTW: There are NO drivers for Windows NT and no official drivers for 
>OS/2.  

Nor for Linux...
-- 
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close...........(v)301 56 LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead........vr vr vr vr.................20915-1433

wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes:

>>>>:There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.
>{..}

>>Sounds like they are about to discontinue them. They already
>>discontinued the two port card.
>{..}
>>BTW: There are NO drivers for Windows NT and no official drivers for 
>>OS/2.  

>Nor for Linux...

Nope, but the tech spec is on their ftp server...

I made a very simple change to the NT standard serial driver and I get single
B channel downloads at about 7.5k / sec at around 250 total interrupts / sec.
It runs around 1400 interrupts / sec on a 16550.

(The change is to use 9 instead of 1 as the FIFO enable constant; this
sets a DMA enable bit in the FIFO control register and prevents the
ESP from interrupting PER CHARACTER.)

I actually doubt that a real driver would be much benefit given all the other
per character processing in the NT driver.

Orin.

In message <orinDLGJIB.Dt4@netcom.com> - orin@netcom.com (Orin) writes:
:>
:>wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes:
:>
:>>>>>:There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.
:>>{..}
:>
:>>>Sounds like they are about to discontinue them. They already
:>>>discontinued the two port card.
:>>{..}
:>>>BTW: There are NO drivers for Windows NT and no official drivers for 
:>>>OS/2.  
:>
:>>Nor for Linux...

You need to stay current.

This is from the Hayes Forum ESP Library on CIS:
Here are the beta ESP/Windows NT 3.5/3.51 drivers.  Please make sure to  read
the README file before attempting to install.

As for "official" drivers, I don't use the "official" IBM comm drivers either.
 SIO works great and does support the ESP to 921K.

Linux?  I wouldn't be surprised to find drivers, but haven't touched Linux in
2 years.


                       Gary Hammer,  gary@hammer.org
                      *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
                 OS/2 "Must Have" Utilities List and Links
                       http://www.os2.hammer.org/OS2

In <4drdn1$pbs@cornerstone.intergate.net>, gary@hammer.org (Gary Hammer) writes:
>In message <orinDLGJIB.Dt4@netcom.com> - orin@netcom.com (Orin) writes:
>:>
>:>wb8foz@netcom.com (David Lesher) writes:
>:>
>:>>>>>:There are drivers for OS/2, WinNT, Win95, Win 3.x, and DOS.
>:>>{..}
>:>
>:>>>Sounds like they are about to discontinue them. They already
>:>>>discontinued the two port card.
>:>>{..}
>:>>>BTW: There are NO drivers for Windows NT and no official drivers for 
>:>>>OS/2.  
>:>
>:>>Nor for Linux...
>
>You need to stay current.
>
>This is from the Hayes Forum ESP Library on CIS:
>Here are the beta ESP/Windows NT 3.5/3.51 drivers.  Please make sure to  read
>the README file before attempting to install.
>
>As for "official" drivers, I don't use the "official" IBM comm drivers either.
> SIO works great and does support the ESP to 921K.
>
>Linux?  I wouldn't be surprised to find drivers, but haven't touched Linux in
>2 years.
>
>
>                       Gary Hammer,  gary@hammer.org
>                      *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
>                 OS/2 "Must Have" Utilities List and Links
>                       http://www.os2.hammer.org/OS2
>

I just installed an ESP II 1 port card I bought from Hayes last week for
$49 plu shipping.  Works great with OS/2 and the SIO comm drivers, I had
a little trouble getting it installed for WIN95 but eventually got it to work and
it functions just fine (needed more there, too!) and also installed for Win 3.1
over PC-DOS 7.0 and it works great there as well (even the speed mutiplier to
allow comm settings greater than apps will allow.  I use it with a Hayes
Business 288 (voice/data/fax) modem for PPP (Other provider), SLIP 
(IBM Dialer), Faxworks Pro, Hyper Access Lite, and the AutoSync mode of 
AS/400 connections using IBM's PCOMM for OS/2.  I also use it with 
Microsoft's Internet Explorer and fax under WIN95, and PCPLUS and Micro 
Integrations PC 5250 for Auto-Sync under DOS/Win 3.1.  No trouble with any
of them.  Throughput under IBM's Dialer increased by about 25% (my only 
28.8 connection).

When doing background ftp downloads the desktop is much more responsive!  
This is in a IBM ValuePoint 486-66 Performance Series mini-tower with 
16mb Ram.

I would heartily recommend the ESP II, it offers visible inprovement over my
16550 UART comm ports. 

Tom Westdorp
Midrange Systems Consultants
Another Very Happy IBM OS/2 Warp Connect (a *REAL 32 bit OS) User

In article <4dn07k$sa0@voyager.internex.net>,
Russ Teasdale <russ@internex.net> wrote:
>
>	I would hope that the aforementioned experience was atypical. 
>Based on the symptoms described, you have every right to complain. 
>	Allow me to meet your complaint, both for you and for the
>edification of the reading audience, both with an explanation, and
>with an apology for the inconvenience.
>	Every ISP manages to mishandle customers at some time or
>another, and we're no exception. However, where we do differ from the
>run of the mill ISP is that we do _not_ snootily ignore justified
>complaints of this type. This can and will be addressed at once.

	This is more or less what Rberger said to me, and it still took
two days after writting directly to him before my wife's Email even worked.
And maybe I was wrong, but when I saw the name was spelled wrong, I followed
the directions in the new-user Email message that tells you how to have NOC
change your account info instead of bitching at Rberger directly again.

>	Let me describe what we've just done, and what we will do:
>	Your letter was circulated to all senior staff at InterNex, and to the
>managers of the departments that handled your order. There will be
>immediate accountability for the mishandling.

This is what Rberger said he would do.

>	If you'll be so good as to inform me of the particulars of your
>account, and of how you'd like to have your wife's name correctly
>spelled, I will personally make sure that it will be working within
>one working day of notification.

	I'll send you the same Email I sent to Rberger and every other officer
in the company who's Email address I tried to figure out. (Incidently either
the president or the CEO gave a strange bounce message about a circular
definition or something like that).

>	We value you as we value all of our customers, and we'd like
>to keep you on board with us. 

	Frankly, at this point your company has already lost me as a customer,
and it is up to you to get me back.  I can see one or two setup mistakes,
but this many?  And the fact that when there were tons of problems somebody
didn't "hold my hand" to make sure everything go setup once and for all is
inexcuseable.  I'm a Novell & Unix network administrator, and I know that
with proper procedures and reliable employees mistakes like this don't have
to happen.  Heck, it should only take 5 freaking minutes to setup an Email
account in the first place... Why should a customer who's account has been
so fucked up have to wait 48 or even 24 hours?

>	If there's anything further that I can do to square things away and
>make your experience as a customer a smooth and pleasant and rewarding
>one, please feel at liberty to call me at the telephone number shown
>below. That goes straight to my desk, and I promise you that I'll put
>you at the head of the queue.
>Russ Teasdale
>Director of Product Marketing           <russ@internex.net>
>InterNex Information Services           <http://www.internex.net>
>2302 Walsh Ave.                              <tel: 408-327-2309>
>Santa Clara, CA  95051                    <fax: 408-496-5485>

	-Tash Hepting

	My opinions are my own, and do not reflect the opinions of my employer,
First Pacific Networks.