🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thursday, in article
     <jhf5UAAluNO2EwGj@colskip.demon.co.uk>
     colskip@colskip.demon.co.uk "Colin Smith" wrote:

> In article <3638a1af.0@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>, Malcolm Muir
> <malcolm@demon.net> writes
> 
> [snip]
> 
> >Well the latter is correct, however there are still a number of
> >suspect V.90 implementations about so the former need not be true.
> >
> Would you care to name some, and is Pace among them.

I suspect that at the moment *all* V.90 implementations are a 
bit dodgy after being rushed out to meet a marketting deadline.

Even so Pace internals are particularly unhappy connecting to
Ascends (but OK to Colts) and apparently the externals vice-versa.
(at least according to threads on here)

It would be nice if someone with the statistical data would name
and shame the worst offending modems now so that people buying
for Christmas do not get landed with brand new duff modems.

Regards,
-- 
Martin Brown  <martin@nezumi.demon.co.uk>     __                CIS: 71651,470
Scientific Software Consultancy             /^,,)__/