🚀 go-pugleaf

"David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
news:6AVf3bFPWtp6EA$H@wood2.org.uk...
> In message <984vvb$dja$1@soap.pipex.net>, Lawrence Groves
> <lgroves@mail.hadenmac.com> writes
> >Windows2000 doesn't support any of the options offered by Demon
> >directly.
>
> That's not quite true. Demon's configurator interacts differently with
> the various ROMPs. With the Ascend kit (Purple including g4 and g5, also
> Red) it pretty much tells it what to offer, but the 3Com kit (Green) and
> Cisco kit (Blue) doesn't pay a lot of attention. Blue offers compression
> types that can't be configured via Web Password that work with NT 4 RAS
> and Windows 2000 - I believe Green does, too.


That's exactly what I said.... if you had read the next sentence:

-----> However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs


> >That's because MS removed STAC compression when the moved from NT to
> >2000.
>
> I've read that before in demon.service.isdn, and it's wrong. Microsoft
> didn't remove any compression options from Windows 2000. Windows 2000's
> dial up code is based on NT4's RAS, which equally doesn't have any
> support for STAC compression. Even Microsoft wouldn't, I'm sure, take
> out useful features when producing the next version for no good reason.


I think you are wrong. It appears that MS now *only* implements STAC option
4 under Windows 2000. Presumably, this is not supported by certain older kit
that you may wish to connect with.

There is a demonstratable difference between the number of ROMPs I can
connect to with compression using NT verses 2000 on my dual boot system. I
get compression on MORE using NT4.

Since when did MS *not* remove useful features (or do anything else for that
matter) for no good reason??? You are having a laugh, aren't you??


> Windows 9x/ME has STAC compression, but that's a completely different
> code base. Despite the name, Windows 2000 is NT 5 - I can't think that
> there's very much code in it that's been stolen from Windows 9x.


I agree. However, I wouldn't be surprised if 2000's code was based on RRAS
not RAS from NT4. Anyone with any sense has been using that code for
years... as a RAS replacement under NT. There are very major differences
(although I couldn't swear about any in this specific area) between the two
products. But that could in part explain what I have noted above (I use RAS
at home, RRAS at work. I have no need for the routing stuff with only one
computer at home).


> >However, 2000 can negotiate compression with the kit at certain ROMPs.
> >I successfully use the Blue ROMP with compression under 2000. I have my
> >compression option on the WebPassword page set to 'MS-STAC'.
>
> Correct - and it's recommended you set MS_STAC, though I have a feeling
> it's not strictly necessary.
>
> >NOTE: a lot of the other ROMP's kit will not negotiate this new type of
> >compression (for example, the surftime numbers IIRC). So the most
> >important thing to check is the number you are dialling.
>
> The Ascend kit, as I've said, doesn't offer any compression types that
> will work with NT / Windows 2000.

Agreed.

Regards, Loz.