• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

The 2400 "baud" modem

Network World - 27 January 1986

Concord2400.jpg
 
I could be wrong but I think the modem I had with my BBC micro could run at 2400 baud. I used it to connect to Micronet 800 which has long since disappeared. I wonder what happened to all the content!
 
I started a local RBBS in 1885ish with a 300 baud modem, then about every year I got a new fast modem. By favorite around late 1989-1990 was a Intel 9600 baud that I could send a FAX from DOS text files. It was called "SatisFAXtion" I used that modem for years with several BBS systems.

framer
 
framer said:
I started a local RBBS in 1885ish with a 300 baud modem, then about every year I got a new fast modem. By favorite around late 1989-1990 was a Intel 9600 baud that I could send a FAX from DOS text files. It was called "SatisFAXtion" I used that modem for years with several BBS systems.
Click to expand...

I will wager a sixpack of your favorite brew that you did not have a "9600 baud" modem. You probably had one that was rated at 9600 bps. My favorites for BBS use were the USR "Dual Standard" and "V.Everything" modems.

My gosh, you are old--I can't imagine what a modem would have looked like in 1885. After all the telephone was invented in 1875.
 
It is more than 40 years too late to fight the baud versus bps terminology battle since Wayne Green pushed baud to the forefront with the magazine Kilobaud.
 
NSD just called his rag "Kilobaud"; I don't think he entered the bps vs. baud fray. The differentiation to a communications engineer is very real; most of the pundits who claim no difference wouldn't know a trellis code if it fell on them.

Let's also be very clear about the "bps" thing. It isn't as if you're handling 9600 bytes per second of data--unless you're running synchronous protocol. For the unwashed async world, there's overhead in them bits. 8N1 for example, means 1 start, 8 data and one stop (not a real bit, but a pause in transmission to allow for synchronization). So an async data stream clocked at 9600 Hz actually moves data at (8/10*9600) = 7680 bps or 960 bytes/second, best case.
 
I learned early on to never trust the provided description; it was necessary to compare the specification to the actual result and produce a correct specification.

The erstwhile 1200 bps cassette routines that only transferred about 100 bytes per second did seem a bit heavy on the overhead.
 
Chuck(G) said:
I will wager a sixpack of your favorite brew that you did not have a "9600 baud" modem. You probably had one that was rated at 9600 bps. My favorites for BBS use were the USR "Dual Standard" and "V.Everything" modems.

My gosh, you are old--I can't imagine what a modem would have looked like in 1885. After all the telephone was invented in 1875.
Click to expand...

I used a supra + that let me connect at 9600 with USR modems on a Amiga 1000..
Then when I moved up to a PC I did something I never do Upgraded to new tech when
it came out but the deal was so good I could not pass it by compUSA just got them in
USR 14.4 for $100 bucks that was A goof on there part but had to give it to me for the
posted price on the end cap they tried to make me pay almost 200 but when I showed the
they had no choice
 
If you were a sysop back then, USR would offer you the modems with a substantial discount. The gotcha was that they pop-riveted a small aluminum plaque to the modem that said something to the effect of "promotional--not for resale". But I started with the old Dual Standard, got a promo deal on the V.32 units and then eventually the V.Everything modems. These were the big black-cased models. The Sportster 56K ones were junk.

USR wasn't the first manufacturer to rely on proprietary protocol to get higher speeds. I used a Racal-Vadic model that could reach 2000 bps if it was talking to a similar modem. And then there was the Telebit Trailblazer...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top