Reports on Trailblazer modems (especially with 3B2 and IBM PCs)

[William E. Davidsen Jr]

In article <1451 at bigtex.uucp> james at bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen) writes:
| [...]
| More likely, Telebit simply didn't buy enough advertising in the issue the
| review was in.
	If their results don't match your results (or expectations) they
must be slanting the tests? This is typical sour grapes. I think some
echnical questions are totally valid, if you have them, but your
statement above belongs in rec.flame.
| 
| Magazine reviews in general are of dubious value.  InfoWorld did a review
| of several 80386 machines last fall, including the 16MHz *static* RAM,
	Everyone has to decide what parts of the test applies to his/her
own situation. If I need a modem for local connections I want Hayes
compatibility, hardware reliability, and price. If I need to make long
distance calls through a rural phone system I will be more interested in
noise rejection.

	To the extent that the testing procedures are not always well
enough defined to clarify the results, I agree that some tests shed
little illumination.

	As to the speed of static vs. dynamic RAM 386s, while I would
not claim that the tests were representative, I would expect the results
reported to be replicable. Many of the machines advertizing "static RAM"
are really using "column static RAM," which does in fact generate wait
states, depending on memory usage.

	My experience is that reviews and tests are useful for
eliminating hardware or software which is obviously unsuitable, leaving
time for better evaluation of the remaining units. I also feel that if
five tests indicate that unit A is better than B in some areas, that it
almost always is true.
-- 
	bill davidsen		(wedu at ge-crd.arpa)
  {uunet | philabs | seismo}!steinmetz!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me