🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <98abpa$6pp$1@soap.pipex.net>, Lawrence Groves
<lgroves@mail.hadenmac.com> writes
>"David Wood" <david@wood2.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:6AVf3bFPWtp6EA$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. 

RRAS is included in W2000 server & 'improved' Steelhead (RRAS) was an
optional addition for NT4
>
>> >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.

According to 3com Ms Stac is Stac-Extended, though connecting to other
3com routers they suggest Stac (the default) so perhaps when connecting
to the green romp with a 3com router one ought to use that.
Isn't it a bit academic in any case as most of the larger downloads I
take are of compressed stuff zips, iso images etc which aren't going to
compress much or at all?

John Chapple