Slashdot Mirror
WinDSL Coming?
A number of people have written in in the last day or so regarding Motorola's rollout of software-based DSL modems. Apparently, this wil reduce the cost of the modems by 30-40%, meaning that they can put DSL into the lower-end of machines. I stand corrected - they aren't modems, they are bridges/routers - and I must be blind, because Linux support was specified in the release. IMDUM.
Granted, it is probably easier to write a driver for the Cisco 605 DSL modem but as far as I know there still isn't a driver for it for anything but Windows. If you get this internal modem as part of your DSL startup kit you have to order something like a 675 to use it with any other system.(the 675 is much better anyway - it has an operating system, NAT, DHCP, while the 605 only works with one computer.)
God I hope Motorola keeps the source closed, wraps it in onerous licensing, and sends assassins after anyone caught developing non-windows drivers.
If they do make open source driver code, I think the Linux community should send death squads after anybody caught writing drivers.
Do you have to do everything Billy is doing? If Billy jumps in front of a car, does the Penguin have too! Stop the suckage now!
How is it that software DSL modems will be able to be "put into the lower-end of machines". Software modems require more processor power. Currently I have a Performa 578 (68LC040 @ 33mhz) acting as my Web/FTP/Mail server on my DSL line. Sure, its more powerful than a 486, but can it get much lower end that this? (Even if the P578 had PCI slots how would a software modem be able to run in lower-end machines than a hardware modem?
Now that they've moved almost all the functionality into the "software" side, in the future they would just say like
"Just live with that bugg..err.. slightly misfeatured driver. We are not going to fi.. improve that"
"You dare to reverse-engineer and disclose the internet usage habit peeping(tm) functionality in the driver? Prepare to meet our lawyers from hell!"
"Didn't you click 'I Agree' button in the driver software installation step? Now you may return only hardware portion of our product which consists only 2% of the cost you bought"
Wondering whether this'll gonna be the next generation 'beowolf post'
The thin (10BASE2) and thick coax (10BASE5) variants of 10 megabit Ethernet use digital baseband signaling. I'm not sure what 100BASE-T uses, I believe it is still baseband with a more complex encoding scheme. The only Ethernet modems that I have seen were for 10BASE36, a broadband version of Ethernet that was used on CATV systems.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
But DSL doesn't support the end-user's needs - it also supports the DSL carrier (Layers 1 and 2) and the ISP (Layer 3) during installation , long-term operations, and service failures.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Here's my DeCSS mirror. Where's yours?
Here's my DeCSS mirror, where's yours?
Having used the Zoom Telephonics 56Kx 2949L modem for about 18 months, I get 50666 to 53333 bps connect speeds most of the time. :-)
The best thing about an external modem is you can see the status lights of the modem operation--like connect speeds, data transfer, error correction, etc. And being an external modem, it doesn't steal CPU cycles when operating, either.
By the way, if you want to connect a digital camera or a Palm device, use a USB port instead--the transfer rate is FAR faster than a serial port.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Right, they're not that expensive compared to other high speed devices.
But, imagine that these companies are expecting DSL to become mass-consumer access technology to replace dial-up modems and when you reach that type of market volume, you start looking at ways to shave off as much cost as you can to maximize your operating margin. If these devices are going to be consumer-installable where a premises service truck roll isn't needed, they will be all the more attractive.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
I know, I'm probably throwing away more karma replying to your bad moderation and that I should just let you take the hit in metamoderation, but I really have to same this...
It's not off-topic when a thread drifts away from the original topic. If it was, 95% of the comments on a thread that had more than 3 replies would be off-topic. But then again, I can't understand why you would want to waste a moderator point on this when there are all of the real OT posts about Natalie Portman, grits, pancake eating ninjas, free Kevin Mitnick, first posts and Columbine HS posts.
That said, I'm probably going to loose more karma because I both insulted a moderator and because this is only on topic if you would read the post I'm replying to (which whoever moderated the last post down obviously didn't do). Well, have at the karma... Chances are I will still have more than you (and I don't have to worry about metamoderation either) and it's going to take quite a while for you to take away my +1 bonus.
kwsNI
That's not what your penguin said yesterday!
We don't spend ridiculous amounts of money on faster processors and graphics accelerators just to have our fast connection take the benefits of these away from us. So for the high-end or just gamer group this is a bad idea. Look at the lower-end "just a guy trying to download stuff". Whats he gonna download? If its streaming video or anything that requires a decent processor (in other words the "good stuff" hehe) then he's screwed. People who would just download large files like a linux installation and BeOS are out of luck because getting drivers for these OSes is going to be a joke. So tell me who is this supposed to appeal to? Stupid people? I'm sorry but I just don't see the point. If you're going to spend more money for the faster processor (550+?!?) why not spend more money so you can get some good use out of it? Just me 1.5 cents.
Apartment6
I can't belive you dipshit moderators moved this up!
damn!
PacBell is currently installing an external Ethernet DSL router under their 1 year contract special. At least I assume it's an external based on the equipment specification/system requirements that they give.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
"I'm hijacking this thread... take me to Cuba!" On a serious note... I work for perhaps the most influential DSL provider in the world, and here is what I want to tell you. Nobody is paying any attention to Linux. Sure, some of us use it, but for sheer market reasons, we are coming out with lower-cost devices primarily for the PC marketplace. These devices are, in many cases, already dependent upon PPPoE software. And do you think we're taking the time to test/qualify/distribute the software for Linux? Not likely... Still, even the biggest DSL providers only have about 100,000 customers, so if there was a really strong desire from Linux users to get organized and get their DSL, then who would possibly want to refuse that many customers? Linux users can change things, but you will all have to get better organized. Here's how... Take a known quantity with lots of readers in the Linux world, such as Andover/Slashdot, and use them to start providing DSL services. Essentially, you'd make them an ISP in the same sense that bowie.net is an ISP... all the service and installation is outsourced. Once you have that, it would be a lot easier to have a company approach a major DSL player and say "We have 30,000 users who wants DSL... who wants to play with us?" I can't do it for you, but best of luck out there...!
CAP - Carrierless Amplitude/Phase Modulation I guess this is not about modulation at all ? And it has nothing to do with QAM ? ;) You are right that CAP and maybe rather DMT (Discrete Multitone Modulation) are more of line codes rather than modulations, but still - CAP does convert digital data to analog frequencies, even if it is done via digital processing ;) And then again - what about "digital modems" ? Those used in V.90 access servers, providing codec to convert analog signal in digital form back to pure digital ? Technology is digital to digital, but the function itself is demodulating... Just my 0.03 Euro =)
Just choose the "Plain Ol' Text" option instead of the Extrans - these two items have been switched in terms of what they do.
I also agree that the moderator was in error there moderating it down.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They might not be able to talk with an old 212 modem, but they are modems. They just happen to operate in a higher frequency band than POTS modems. The higher the base frequency, the more bandwidth available per octave of frequency.
In fact, even ISDN has to do analog modulation. It just uses a much simpler form of modulation which can easily be run through repeaters for longer distances from the CO. ISDL is DSL protocols over ISDN modulation, and using ATM instead of the PSTN to get out of the CO.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
... ehm.... forgot to type in the URL, or mozilla M15 is playing triks on me?
Ciao, Rob!
AniToolBox! An Open Source animation program!
I heard from one of my Mac freinds that the G4 can already do software DSL. Anybody have any more info on this?
Not a typewriter
It says they're comming out with Software modems. It doesn't say anything about them being specifically for windows. Motorolla is simply trying to get DSL to the crummier computers.
I'm surprised how everyone jumps all over this, simply assuming that their beloved Linux will get left out. Motorolla is a good company.
this was bound to happen... hopfully cable service will be in my area this summer.
Read the Motorola press release. My biggest gripe with software modems is the processor time they use, platform compatibility aside. Hell, a Cisco 675 DSL-to-Ethernet modem isn't that expensive, my phone company gives 'em away with a 12-month ($39/month) contract (including ISP and half-T1 speed).
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
This is just another scrap of evidence in my argument that cheaper is not always better. Most of the time, cheaper is just cheap.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
It seems like whenever there is a way to make DSL cheaper it excludes Linux users. FreeDSL.com, and now this. Grrr. Are there any projects that are trying to emulate the windows software modems? That would be something I would love to sink my teeth into.
I don't understand. You can get Linksys' EtherFast Cable/DSL Router for roughly $150 on the net. Vastly superior solution. More flexible and includes a firewall. I'm not suggesting *we* use it -- I'm quite happy with my dual-nic Linux router firewall. But the masses might appreciate what it can offer.
You know, even 5-15% translates to a hell of a lot of money when you consider how large the computer market is...
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
I myself am extremely skeptical of the idea of an ADSL modem that depends on CPU cycles for it to run properly.
Even if you can get to run under Linux, stealing CPU cycles to run this thing might cause no end of system slowdowns even WITH a fast CPU.
The fact we now have external ADSL modems from several vendors that connect to the USB port shows that the whole idea from Motorola is silly.
By the way, I've played with PCI card analog modems and frankly, they steal too many CPU cycles and sometimes cause major system slowdowns. That's why my computer at home has an _external_ modem (a Zoom 56Kx Model 2949L).
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Actually, my PacBell-provided 'DSL' modem is really an ATM NIC card -at least that's the binding and protocol that is loaded into WinNT (sorry) networking when the card is installed. The card is an Efficient Networks SpeedStream 3030. I can't wait until the Linux drivers are released and I can ditch my bluescreening NT server.
It was the GeoPort, actually. I had one on my old 6100/60, and when I was online, it slowed the entire computer down to about 50% responsiveness. While the idea of being able to "upgrade" your modem through software seemed appealing, I never got it to work faster than 14400 bps. The 2.0 update crashed my machine repeatedly. (No 28.8 for me...)
---
--
Mac OS X--Unix without the assholes^Whassles.
WinDSL is already here. Just look at the Efficient Networks 3060 and 4060 modems that most ISPs have started installing. They MUST download firmware before they operate. Many users report they their computer is much slower after installation too. Yep, the WinDSLModem is already here......
So what happens when Windoze blue-screens?
Will they have to scrape your brains off the wall?
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
There going to windowize it again. When are people going to realize how much of the market is NOT windows. Oh well, there loss.
Actually, I've seen a grand total of three posts complaining about lack of alternate OS support as of 11:00 AM EST. One vageuly alluded to it, and the other was posted as AC 0 so it was hidden. I do admit that I missed one that was posted at around 8:30 this morning, because it was very far down the list. I can assure you if these modems were windows only, there would be a mad run of flames down this entire post. It is true that most don't care about the Linux drivers, and think this is crappy hardware; I never said otherwise. The first part of my post was just pointing out that this supported Linux, but not other OSs, and they should open the specs to allow other OSs to be supported. Related to that I would like to point out that this is not like closed spec video cards, which I support. There is really no point in keeping the specs to cheap DSL modems closed. I doubt people are going to shop around for which software modem can squeeze the most framerate out of Quake! Thus, giving competitors some insight into how your hardware works doesn't help them, because I doubt there is some incredible engineering pipeline behind this modem like there is with, say a GeForce.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
Nope - you morph into a species frighteningly like species 8472 in STVOY, and you become M$'s evil servant. Over time, it will happen to you anyway if you use their software :-P
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Visit
They don't give a crap :)
I can see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I do agree with you that given any even semi-decent processor, it will be pretty much unnoticable on its own, but that isn't what's going to happen: The fact is that the time when these things are going to be in use is the same time when the processor will be under the heaviest strain anyway; the whole point is that these are broadband internet devices - people will want to use them for watching movies online, and so on.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
Ok, there are a few reasons I don't like this. Most companies (at least where I live) are providing the DSL modems for free when you sign up for a 1-year contract for DSL. This means they can give me a cheaper (and Win-ONLY) modem. If they are anything like Winmodems, I doubt that anytime during the lifetime of DSL will they remove all of the bugs. I work for a very large computer company and we still have a large amount of problems with Winmodems and some online services (*cough* AOL).
kwsNI
regardless, that isn't motorola's problem. DSL is competing with cable internet access. There's no reason why they shouldn't try to make a low cost solution for those markets that demand them. God forbid we would have choices or flexibility.
First there was WinModems (thanks a LOT, 3scum)
Then there was WinPrinters (thanks a LOT, HPee)
now this. I've never bought Win-anything and I'm not about to start now.
---
First off, note that it's unlikely that full-fledged DSL routers will ever be discontinued -- you'll still need them for networks, etc.; no sane sysadmin is going to rely on a software-based router, when their servers have enough CPU utilization as it is. Second, this will help especially for poorer people - free DSL can now be that much closer to free (not that I'd use it, but the days of $20-$30 DSL are that much closer...) Third, gamers -- don't buy these and you can beat up on all the warez d00dz whose mommies bought them the el cheapo DSL router! You've got a tactical advantage here! Don't complain! :-) --bdj
Odds are against Micro$oft allowing Linux users anywhere near these modems. If luck is on the open source side, someone at these hardware vendors will also be on the open source side, and "reverse engineer" it to the same standards he wrote while at work, and release the software for everyone.
`Lex - Find Me Here: Text Appeal
But from an engineering point of view, this is bad. The driver should be well-separated from the CPU, so that the OS does not get too complicated (read: stable, bug-free, predictable). The protocols would be cleaner, so that more OSes can use the peripheral. So that the modem is not tied needlessly to one OS, or certain types of functionality. From the users perspective, this is better. It is the users computer. He/she should *know* what he is in for when installing such a thing. Heshe should know that with such a modem, running Quake through the modem might not be such a good idea. Yet these design issues are just glossed over for something "cheap". Is this way way to treat a consumer, however clueless they may be?
No, you can't update the firmware on a software modem. You can update firmware on a hardware modem though. Software modems don't have firmwares. They do have drivers that control the modulation/demodulation of the signal, etc though. And the fact that you can update a winmodem's drivers, has absolutely nothing to do with anything when it comes to their performance. I used to work tech support at a large ISP, and yes, I know what unreliable beasts they are. But not because you can update them. Also, yes, getting an external modem will generally guarantee that it is not a software based one, but there are hardware based internal modems as well, that are cheaper and just as reliable. You just have to know what you're looking for.
This is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. PPPoE (some stupid ppp tunnel over eth) takes up 2-3% under linux on my 450A. That's just to push and pull 60K/s. Imagine doing what the dsl modem does in software. Are these people on crack? If so, I want some of it, it sure must be some strong ass crack.
I really doubt that this will be anything but a binary driver. Yes, it's their product, and they can do what they want with it. But it does not give me a warm fuzzy feeling.
---
But you must remember that you aren't updating the firmware. Software modems don't have firmware, they are a DSP on a card. You can update the software that runs the modem, and this software includes the job of what traditionally is in firmware. It is really just a software upgrade.
What is even worse about the performance issue of these modems is that they are "low-end" so they will probably only be slipped into low-end systems, making performance of those low-end systems even worse. The high-end systems will retain hardware capabilities.
This leads to cases like, "I don't know why your 400Mhz system is faster than my new 600Mhz system."
Well, when I bought my 400Mhz system I loaded it up(this is hypothetical, I have about 4 400Mhz systems in this room, and I'm not talking about any of them). The 400Mhz system has 256MB of RAM, a really fast Graphics system(name your own), and a fast disk system(7200rpm, maybe scsi), hardware modem, postscript printer with lots of ram...
Your poor 600Mhz system only has 64MB of ram, last years cheezy video card, and an old 5400rpm ATA33 disk in it, software modem, and a windows printer.
So, my entire document is already spooled to my printer, while you are waiting for your system to process how to print it. You also hear the disk thrashing, its called swapping.
I launch a game of quake3 or UT or another cpu/gfx intensive game and I play while I'm printing. You were able to lauch quake3 but your disk is still crunching. That substandard graphics chip doesn't play too well when it can't have all of that processor working for it...
I could continue the scenario, but I digress...
I did want to say however that linux 2.2.x is damn efficient. I have an EIDE cd burner on a ATA33 bus that I use with cdrecord. I can burn discs in the background while playing quake3. This is a wussy Celeron 400, not overclocked, still at the lame 66Mhz FSB. And this box only has 64MB of ram! I was most impressed by this. No buffer underruns, the disc was perfect.
Bring on 2.4.x, cuz I failed to mention that it has 2 of those Celeron 400's, and the SMP should be even better in 2.4.
--
no catchy tagline
In fact the press release spoke glowingly of Linux specifically and open source in general. It spoke of companies using Linux enjoying lower hardware costs and avoiding software obsolescence, and users enjoying easier upgrades.
The net will not be what we demand, but what we make it. Build it well.
Seems Motorola is planning to support Linux because Linux is beginning to be used in the set top box market, where consumers demand low cost solutions, and having high bandwidth is a Good Thing (TM).
I still use Windows on one of my systems, but when presented with the option of external CPE (Cisco 675) for $50 over the free internal Cisco 605, I happily took it. For one, CBOS is much like IOS, which would be interesting on its own. Then there is the fact that NAT and firewalling capabilities are built into it, and accessible via telnet/web/console port. Try finding that functionality in Windows for less than $50! And of course, I must say that I think that as long as the cable networks get opened to competition, cable is going to rule "broadband" anyway, so the point is moot. Why are people unable to understand that fatter pipes carry more water?
--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Grr. To hell with it all. I'm gonna post my posts NAKED, without any previewing. :-)
--bdj
I could barely stop from laughing when I read the pap on SoftDSL. First off, the router needs a P550+ just to run, second, the release had a few things that were inaccurate. You can flash update a Hardware-Based DSL router, so if the standards need changed, it's relatively painless. Second, the quality of components in a software-based DSL router is probably considerably less than a hardware solution, so you'll run into more problems with component failures, let alone the performance hit. Which brings me to the final point, this seems like it's a hugely bloated bit of coding if it takes a P550+ to do what a hardware based solution can do with a 486/33, which is what's in the router I use.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
It is highly configurable, USWest sent about four different manuals with it (RTFM, indeed!). It's given me some exposure to Cisco hardware, good experience with Telnet, routing tables, ports, and the CBOS (Cisco Broadband Operating System.) Also, it works on anything you can connect to an Ethernet hub or switch, Linux, Mac, Windows, BeOS, you name it. I've had 6 machines hooked up to it at once, with nary a glitch.
I'd be skeptical that a software modem could provide a very robust operating scheme. The 675 has never crashed, but a modem dependent on your WinBox to run just might.
Free music from Jack Merlot.
DSL modems are properly called modems. They are every bit an analog modulated signal processing machine. They have big, crunchy DSPs (which the Moto software expects to eliminate), and they extract digital bits from an analog signal. A variety of modulation techniques are used, and there are a variety of DSLs, DMT being a common one for ADSL and G.Lite. The main difference between DSL modems and commonly used V.90 modems is that DSL modems cannot transmit a DSL signal any deeper into the telephone network than the DSL Access Multiplexer (DSLAM) at the other end of the local loop. Otherwise they are just a faster modem. Some DSL modems include a router. That "router" can be anything from a bridge to a full-on VPN-capable router with special encryption hardware. But the DSL part could be replaced by a V.90 modem, an ISDN TA, or a T1 interface. Which brings us to the sidebar that a lot of "T1" is actually SDSL because SDSL signals go much farther than T1 signals, eliminating the need for expensive repeaters in the outside plant. I am sceptical that current-generation PC users will find "softDSL" acceptable. Softmodems have a noticable performance impact and I would not use them outside of very well-defined applications, like a notebook computer where the modem would be used to fetch e-mail on the road. DSP power is relatively cheap, and CPUs are, these days, called on for multimedia signal processing (i.e. decompression) often enough that it makes sense to offload modem signal processing. DSL modems will probably take twice as much CPU power as a V.90 modem, maybe more. OTOH, Windows 2000 and Linux (Mac too?) do a good job of routing these days, so simple modems with DSPs probably make a lot of sense compared with modem/routers for many applications. With a fixed-function box it is difficult to add, for example, VPN or fancy firewall if you want it, where a desktop CPU should have plenty of headroom for the encryption.
I wrote parts of this stuff
If you need that much processing power for a DSL modem to be hardly noticible (which is what I suppose they mean, maybe less than 20-30% processor usage), then can you imagine playing Quake 3
You're missing the point. The reason they say you need this minimum is because this is what you'll need to effectively use the rest of your computer normally. Now, it's debatable what they consider normal, but if, for-example, they considered a normal configuration to be a 350MHZ machine ( min you can find these days ), then they'd add their CPU worst-case load onto it.. Asumming these numbers, then their max load would require a 200MHZ CPU.
This is unlike a Software DVD player, which can assume that you won't be doing anything else while watching the DVD.
Course, at the very least, you're going to increase your latency. Normally, you could pipeline the CPU operation, the xDSL encoding, and the transmission. Now the CPU can only pipeline against the transmission and must multiplex the CPU and encoding. This has the obvious effect of slowing down your applications ( Such as 3D shooters ), but has the added [inbound] ping time due to slower responsiveness from the context switching, etc.
-Michael
-Michael
I do not know about dsl, but a cable modem is actually a modem. The signal on the cable line is an analog signal, and has to be converted into digital information. Yes it is not converting an audio signal that you can hear, but it is modulating/demodulating so it is actually a modem.
_this is not a signature_
These companies cannot deny the Open Source movement is getting strong. It will be interesting whether they choose to deny the Open Source community or not. I know my roommate who works for a local consulting firm that has a couple deals with DSL providers where they install DSL in an office and do routing via an OpenBSD box. they'd never get those modems for this reason. It will be interesting if they don't open source them. I can't see them gaining a great deal of support from small business who rely on things like BSD to do IP forwarding.
I'm suprised to see Motorola pushing this; they make DSPs. Maybe it's a competitive move against TI.
All I have to say on this matter is that I'm glad I'm on cable modem :)
You rule.
I've only just gotten up off the floor after laughing my arse off... Not good on a London trading floor!!!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Will the availibility of the standard dsl modems suffer due to the plethora of software based dsl modems that will become availible in the near future. This is what happened to REAL modems once software modems became cheap and widely availible.
http://www.grapevine.net/~gromitkc /winmodem.html
Okay everyone, repeat after me. There IS NO SUCH THING AS A DSL "MODEM". The "D" in DSL is for digital. Modem stands for MODulate/dEModulate. Modems are used for converting digital data to analog sound frequencies. DSL uses codecs. Codecs convert one form of digital data data to another form. The external ones are bridges or routers incompassing the codec, the internal ones are straight codecs. Yes, I've got my metaphorical panties in a bucnch, but this is a technical forum, we could at least attempt to be techinical. BTW, give me a bridge or, better yet, router any day over some cheesy machine bound device.
I like lots of people. That doesn't mean I go carting them around the galaxy with me. --Dr. Who
Given that I already HAVE a Zoom Telephonics 56Kx (Model 2949L) external V.90 modem, I often ask the computer dealer (I'm in the process of looking for a new computer) if I can delete the PCI V.90 modem they normally provide with the computer.
So far, Dell and Micron PC have said yes; Gateway for some strange reason said no.
I do agree that "Winmodems" are terrible. They steal CPU cycles and can cause system slowdowns, especially when accessing pages that take a fairly long time to download.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
http://www.whatis.com/modem.htm disagrees with you - DSL modems are sometimes called by an obscure TLA, but since they take digital in on one side (i.e. ethernet or USB) and put analogue out on the other side (taking care not to disturb the analogue voice channel), it seems to me that 'DSL modem' is a fair term. Nortel' Shasta division make DSLAMs and agree too.
The whole modem / non-modem distinction is somewhat arbitrary - after all, ultimately every digital networking device has to put signals on a wire or fibre, and those signals are ultimately analogue. The only difference is whether there is a simple encoding or a complex encoding, and whether there is an analogue-only mode for that channel, or if the link is expected to always interpret these analogue signals as digital.
Let's just agree that small devices that connect you to phone-like wires are called modems (unless they're called ISDN TAs : )
I clicked through to the TechExtreme article on DSL vs. Cable, and found some pretty inaccurate DSL info there:
http://www.techextreme.com/hardware/guides/dvc/
1. In Toronto, where I live, downstream DSL rates top out at around 1000 Kbps, while I generally get around 100 Kbps upstream. I think this 1/10 aysymettrical ratio is fairly common.
2. The cost of this service is $30/month plus $10/month to rent the modem. I also got a cheap ethernet card thrown in for $10. These figures are in CANADIAN dollars. Which means that I'm paying around $25-30 bucks a month for DSL. The article states that users get 300 - 700 Kbps, and that they pay between $40 and $100/month. Is this true. In what geographical location do people get this badly screwed?
Offtopic, but what going to be the next wave? Everyone is hyper about DSL and Cable now, which probably means there's some killer technology around the corner that will eat them both for breakfast.
Broadband Wireless anyone?
jc
"Some men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not." --George Bernard
Woo hoo! Surf the web at 300 baud! I'm posting this comment with my old IMSAI modem right now! Sure it took 15 minutes after I hit sumbit for me to see my comment posted, but I'm trying to make make a point here. (The hardest part was finding an old phone with a "standard" handset that would fit into the rubber cups.) Luckily, my ISP's modems still do 300 baud.
They are not modems they are routers. Or if you prefer, bridges. They are all digital straight through, and no MOulation or DEModulation is required. Mine is a Cisco 675 that has to be put into transparent bridging mode to work. (Talk about a waste of power...) If we're going to follow the phone companies and call these "modems", I propose we also start calling our cases our "CPU's", 3.5 floppy disks "hard disks", and recognise Al Gore and Bill Gates as the creators of the internet.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
Of course, I suppose you could dedicate a machine to be your internet gateway, so you'll end up paying the cost of an entire machine to get good Quake 3 performance. Hmm. I wonder if Intel and Motorola are conspiring...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
I have to agree with this guy... if people want to buy software driven hardware that uses their CPU to save money... let them. Windows is still the OS of choice of the masses, so I don't see the big deal. Let them have their Windows gear, but you could not get me to even consider giving up my FlowPoint Router :)
There is a very basic reason why this, and other win-software-type devices (WinPrinters being the obvious example) are bad: They're aimed at low-end users, right? But low-end users have low-end processors. So surely it's logically flawed to try to move the processing hit for the modem/printer/whatever onto your main CPU? You have less power than every one else, so you buy hardware which steals some of what power you do have. What's wrong with this picture?
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
I hope Motorola patents this. I'll keep getting my kit from Cisco...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How about putting an embedded Linux system in one of those things. At least that way it would be fairly cheap and it would be Linux base - yay!
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
DSL host based adaptors will likely not be as large a performance hit as MNP5 compression and software flow control will not be an issue as it is with a host based modem. On a winmodem, disable all compression on watch latency drop markedly. Of course, until I see it on Ars or the like, I'll reserve judgement.
"My God, this must be a truly remarkable corn chip, to be so widely and confidently touted."
I entirely agree, I'm not commenting on how cheap or expensive it is overall. I'm simply saying that it's good to have the choice - even if many people (myself included) would not choose a software modem or software DSL.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
Y'all aren't paying attention!
Most of us who have DSL were early adopters and have outboard dsl-to-ethernet bridges that are fully self-contained. I got my Cisco 675 for free, and it was the only way to connect to USWest DSL for a good long time.
These days, the basic DSL hookup comes with either a Cisco or an Intel DSL PCI card.
This card already doesn't have any support or planned support for Linux, BSD, etc.
So, the news that there is going to be *another* DSL card without Linux support is simply, well, not news.
Call me when there is at least one vendor of a DSL card that supports anything but Windows.
This is just like television, only you can see much further.
For the love of all that is good an holy, why the hell are companies shoving everything on the goddamn cpu? "Today's 550 Mhz machines" are not on everyone's desktop. I have a 300! Do we forget that while you may have a gigahertz processor, you don't have enough bus speed to move around all that information? So what if I have a win printer and a WinDSL? I am going to be chugging insanely hard. Let's not forget if I am doing anything with an IDE hard drive. As it is, moving a big file on my UATA/33 hard drive practically freezes up my system, pegging the cpu briefly. Linux support or no, I really hate the trend by some hardware manufacturer's to try and make their products cheaper by using parts of the computer that are already doing something. I NEED the cpu to process my applications, not to govern my net traffic.
And then on the other hand, we have video card companies, who appear to be going in the exact opposite direction, putting ungodly amounts of ram and processing power on a board? Have you looked at a voodoo 5? A Geforce? Which is better recieved by people? A WinPrinter or a GeForce?
Tech people cannot stand WinModems. I remember when they first came out and I didn't understand what was going on with them. I look back now and I think, "My god, what a pain in the ass". Raise your hand if you like WinModems!
Best thing I can say is call your isp and tell them that you do not want this technology to interfere with your internet experience. Tell then that you run multiple computers with multiple OS's, and that winmodems will not work for you. Maybe...just maybe, we can crush this like a bug.
-- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
Recently (last few years), CPU speed has far outstripped software requirements. 600MHz machines are available in low end models now. In the past, mildly overpowered CPUs led to software bloat, programmers just upping the minimum CPU/memory requirements rather than bother to spend the company's $$$ optomizing code (try running Win2k on a 486 to see what I mean). Now CPU power has pulled way out in front, and software bloat is expanding into the hardware realm. The downside is that this makes hardware subject to the same restrictions as software, namely, that it's operation is confined to a particular OS environment. Extending compatibility to other platforms or even to updates of officially supported platforms is a lot of work. Thus, hardware will become rapidly obsoleted. Who will write a driver 10 years from now, even for windows, for a 1999 winmodem? The devide will be useless. And with hardware vendors being tight lipped on releasing hardware specs, 3rd party drivers are often not an option (just ask the Linux laptop developper).
That's a little different. I assume it's internal, or USB. It still does everything in hardware, but it basically bypasses the ethernet card standard DSL modems require. A good thing if you're windows-only, but not worth the pain of making it work in any other OS.. (Belive me, I tried to get a Efficient Networks internal DSL card working in: Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD. The most success I got was getting NetBSD to crash on boot).
-palp
Sorry!
A DSL "modem" *is* a modem. DSL uses an analog AM frequency to broadcast its signal over telephone lines.
To use a DSL modem, you need an R/F seperator that splits the DC telephone signal from the AM radio frequency sent to the DSL modem.
It is also for this reason that DSL service gets slower the further you are from the central telephone office. (And they can't reasonably guarantee 384k download speeds over 18,000 feet, so they just don't service beyond that point)
Digital to Digital? Naw. Same thing all over again, just faster.
At least you don't get a busy signal when you are online!
-Ben
PS: it ROCKS! 1.5 Mb 24x7, static IP, 384k uploads. Downloaded NS 4.7 FULL RELEASE (18 MB) in under 5 minutes... my poor 6.4 GB HD just don't cut the mustard anymore...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
It's OK for everyone in the US. I wish I had the chance to gripe about DSL - the fastest connection available in the UK is the humble 56K dialup link (unless you want to pay for ISDN, a snip at £200 ($300) a month).
I'm OK with WinDSL, if having machines shipped with it in will kick BT up their arse and get them to support DSL (although they'll probably charge about £1000 a month for the priviledge...)
Tony
Good deal for everyone: Vendors get to ship cheap phone jacks instead of expensive modems; Microsoft gets to make off the OEM shelf hardware harder to use for alternative OS; Intel gets to put truth behind those silly "faster proccessor = faster internet" ads and create a market for faster proccessors.
My guess (I haven't read the motorola specs) is the WinDSL modem will simply put the mod/demod piece in software just like current winmodems do. This is one of the reasons why DSL is not as stable as a true digital circuit (like DDS, DS-1, DS-3). It is also why there is a distance limitation on the speed of the line. It would be nice if they supported Linux but WHY? It just seems really stupid to do this in the first place. Put your DSL in a router/bridge/NAT device and huck it out on your LAN.
"Now, I hope and pray that I will, but, today I am still just a bill"
Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
Remember that the issue with bandwdth and latency is very different for Gamers and Downloaders. Gamers only really need about 2-4kbps of bandwidth for most games. What they really require is a low latency connection with minimal loss. Downloaders need a huge pipe with decent latency and tolerant levels of loss.
I'm sure you know this but it deserves repeating all the time.
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
Oh, I think Valve and Cisco are working on the gaming side of the problem with their PowerPlay protocols. Don't have a link handy but I read about it in the recent PCGamer magazine issue.
Fsck cluebie moderators. I'll say what I want, offtopic or not. And fsck having to qualify every bloody statement just
I agree that the user should be aware of what they are buying and what it's limitations are, but I think that is true when buying _any_ hardware or software. This is an education issue and will probably we covered adequately by magazines and online reviews etc.
It is not neccesarily an issue of cluelessness - I might well specifically decide that this software driven modem is better _for me_ because I have limited cash, but don't mind my machine being slowed down. It represents a greater choice for the consumer, that is my point.
I also agree though that from an engineering point of view, this approach may not be the best, but there are always other things to consider in real life - not least the price. If the engineering considerations we're given more preference, I for one would not be using an x86 based machine.
All kinds of things make manufacturers decide to do many things that I believe are far from ideal, which is why choice is important (even when I personally hate some of the choices available) and this move in my view represents a greater choice.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
I'd rather not have things route through the AltiVec unit: look what happened with Photoshop's first batch of AV plug-ins!
Pope
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
The following is quoted from this 3Com white paper
Sounds like a MODEM to me!
I used to work for Diamond Multimedia supporting modems. When the SupraMax (software-based, in other words a "winmodem") came along, we hated them. A lot of our support calls were for people who bought this cheap 56k modem for gaming use and were angry when they got 300-400ms ping times vs. 100 or fewer on their old 28.8k modems. For some applications, even on a P2-350, the drag on the system was noticeable. About the only thing it was good for was e-mail and web browsing.
IMO, a software DSL connection device is a Bad Idea.
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
I fail to see how a WinDSL modem could possibly be targeted at lower end machines, Hemos. They eat CPU time, thus they are /bad/ for low end machines...
All the comments on this thread are all like "win-anything is going to suck processor cycles, so this software DSL modem is going to blow." The fact that everyone is missing is that Linux support was explicitly stated in the press release. Now, what does this mean? I put forth this hypothesis. Let's say Motorola wants to get a chunk of the forthcoming "internet appliance" market, and they see that the future is clearly broadband. They want to make a cheap broadband communications device that they can sell to every company that makes an "internet appliance". What is their target market? CERTAINLY NOT WINDOWS SYSTEMS!!! Honestly, who is ever going to create a win32 based embedded system?? Linux is the natural choice, and if Motorola does not realize this, then they are shooting themselves in the foot. In fact, I bet that they could care less if a wintel box would even boot with the thing in as long as the Linux boxes will work well with it in. My predictions: 1. Motorola is going to get a large pile of money. If (some would say when) this "internet appliance" paradigm gets off the ground, its rise will probably coincide with the rise of the cheap broadband that would be necessary for these devices to work. Since you are trying to keep costs low on these appliances, you are not going to want to by components that are at a premium. Instead you buy a bunch of cheaper things so you can keep your prices low. If Motorola is first out of the gate with this they will have people practically throwing cash at them from all sides. 2. Linux performance will not be as bad as everyone fears. I admit that winmodems suck badly, really really badly when compared to their hardware counterparts. ON A WINDOWS MACHINE. Seriously, I have not seen a win32 machine (except for a few tweaked out NT boxes) that ever have had enough spare resources AT ANY TIME to be able to handle the winmodem overhead satisfactorially, much less a home system. However, we are not talking home systems, we are talking IAPPLIANCES with dedicated tasks. Open your eyes people; they are not trying to sell this to you. The inquisitor has spoken.
Winmodems caused real modems to become thought of as "high end" equipment. Fewer real modems sold. That is always a bad thing.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
[nt]
This just confirms my suspicions that people will buy anything if it's cheaper than an alternative. I can't tell you how many times I've had this conversation: Customer: So what's the difference between the USR 56k FaxModem and this Viking 56k Winmodem? Me: (Dummy mode on)Well, the USR uses hardware on the card itself run the modem, whereas the Viking uses the Pentium to do it. This means the USR gives you much better throughput, and doesn't slow down your processor like the Viking will. Customer: (With glazed over eyes)Uh, huh. But the USR is $119, where this Viking is on sale for $19.95. There both 56k modem, right? My son said get a 56k modem. Me: Well, yes they are both 56k modems, but like I said, the USR gives much better performance, and... Customer: (Half-way out the door) Thanks for your help, I think I'll get this Viking. What a deal! Two weeks later the same guy's back in, wondering why his Win98 machine is so damn slow. The only plus I can see in this is better availability of DSL, as the phone companies keep up with the demand after Compaq and HP put these things in every computer they make.
When previewing, use the back button before repairing the damage or submitting rather than editing in the window on the preview page or submitting from there. The editing tool on the same page as the preview eats things when it shouldn't. It used to convert < into < for example, but now that's fixed. Instead, it eats HTML tags.
Anomalous: inconsistent with or deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Anomalous: deviating from what is usual, normal, or expected
Canard: a false or unfounded repor
Lets us all tell them to fsck off. They are just helping AMD etc. sell more high speed processors ("with todays 550MHz+ processors blah blah blah"). Let's not suffer lower frame rates in online games for the sake of £50, and lets not suffer OS incompatible hardware devices for the sake of it. Please someone with the bandwidth begin a petition now to tell them to fsck off!
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
If these WinDSL "modems" catch on, it'll be a very bad development for use UNIX/Mac/whatever users. I assume you'd still be able to go out and buy your own hardware-based DSL modem, but I think some providers have policies against this practice. Plus it'll be an extra cost, 'cause currently the provider will usually loan you a modem for free... Any word on whether cable modems are moving in this direction, too?
Here's the motorola press release and Yes, there'll be Linux support.
You have heard WinModems, Well here comes LinModems. How about *nixDSL, or something with some guts. These companies just want to make money, obviously. Money above quality.
If you want to use DSL under Linux, don't buy these WinDSL modems. Buy a real DSL modem. If it has "Win" in front of it, don't buy it, and if you do, don't complain about it.
Windows is the most popular platform in use, and it makes business sense for Motorola to do this. Don't complain because they're making money and the Linux companies are losing faster than ever.
Interesting.. looking at my Toshiba PCX1000, it says.. "Cable Modem" right on it :) I went looking for a picture, the best I could find was this link, which doesn't show the writing.. that black circle in the upper left tho is where it says it.
Even as closed-source software we'll hardly see anything coming out for these. AFAIK, the only software modem ever for the Mac was Apple's own work.
Well... this means my built-in modem does work with LinuxPPC :-)
-- Colin
Phew, this happens the day after my DSL finally gets hooked up. My advice: Get DSL and your modem now, so you won't suffer with a WinDSL modem when they come out. It's hard enough with an external dsl modem that plugs into a NIC card.
On an unrelated side note: BellAtlantic Infospeed isn't as horrible as most people tell it to be. The only problem I've had so far is finding their damn dns server (151.198.0.39, 151.198.0.38), but I finally did it and now it's smooth sailing in linux.
SuPz.orG
The future of software-based devices will be introduced by Bill Gates in the year 2008. In the year 2008, computers become obsolete because of this innovation. The innovation? The software-based computer. That's right - the future computer will simply be a drug you inject yourself with, and you gain all of the abilities of a computer. If you need a 'net connection, you can obtain cybernetic ethernet ports for your head. To use the computer, inject yourself with the genetically ingeneered drug, and stare at the picture of Bill Gates. You should soon see a Windows logo appear, floating in mid air, and as soon as your brain starts the computer it will be replaced with the Internet Office Explorer 2008 interface. Linux will come out with a similar solution based on organically produced foods - no genetic engineering!
Microsoft will soon start buying Celera stock...
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Visit
Cheap but good quality hardware is good. But to pass on something as basic as net connectivity to the CPU especially as bandwidth sizes increase, is a bad idea in the end. Furthermore, that's one less slot that you could have filled with a second video card or the like.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Sorry about the messy post
I work for an ISP, in tech support. I definitly know how much winmodems just plain suck. If someone can't connect, 9 times out of 10 it's because they have a winmodem. People refuse to belive that their new expensive computer came with the crappiest $2 modem on earth (then of course, there's the people who think their eMachine is a new, expensive computer...) I do wonder why Dell, Gateway, etc. put such crappy modems in their supposedly "high-end" PCs.
On a related note, my friend has an eMachine (I pity him).. he pulled out the HCF piece-of-shit in it and put in a 33.6 because it was actually -faster- in addition to not making his computer lag (mp3s skipped when downloading stuff! come on!) That is, until he got DSL...
Which is another thing.. any internal DSL "modem", or even an external USB, is just bad. If everyone stuck with the nice external ones, where you just hook it into an ethernet card, there would be -no- problems with software support, as no software is needed! (this excludes things such as PPPoE, PPPoATM, PPTP, etc, which are standards and can be adopted into any OS without having to support 10,000 different hardware vendors).
So basically, this whole "DSL Winmodem" thing combines two very bad ideas, Winmodems, and internal DSL 'modems'. Unfortunitly, it's initially cheaper, so I'm sure it'll be popular.. I know when I order DSL I'm making sure I get a nice external ethernet one.
-palp
For the elite DSL user (8Mb/1Mb streams), I can only wonder about the hardware overhead associated with PCI bus access for DSL firmware access PLUS data packet transfer over PCI bus.
If only Motorola can give their specs out freely and without NDA, then LinuxDSL is a trivial matter.
The best example I can say is take these steps, and you can quite literally *WATCH* the software begin to fail simply becouse of CPU resources..
1) Install a 56k Winmodem in a Celeron 300 Machine running Windows NT. (Windows NT is simply becouse of those lovely beeps it'll make to tell you bad things are happening.. Adds affect)
2) Connect to the net, download RealVideo
3) Play *ANY* RealVideo designed to run on a 56k connection (Usually encoded for 42 or 44 something)
4) Listen top the beeps FLY! CRC errors off the chart. That's what happens with the software based drivers.. No resources, buffer overflows about, and CRC errors (Beeps) start playing a fast beat dance song for you..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Those Intel commercials advertising making the Internet faster with their new processors is finally starting to make sense...
Hahahahaha Stupid ICQ bot.
Actually such modem already exists (Intel 2100 Pro) and distributed widely dy ISPs. But no trace or even mentioning of any drivers for Linux. Now i'm stuck with it and my Linux toy is dead :{
Please take a second and read T1.413, which is the ANSI standard for ADSL.
OR you could just read Newton's Telecom Dictionary, under Modem:
"The term "modem" is also applied (and correctly so, in the purely technical sense) to ISDN TAs (terminal adapters), ADSL TUs(Terminating Units), line drivers and short-haul modems.
Instead of using a shift-keying encoding (typically Quarternary Phase Shift Keying for 28.8kbps and higher) xDSL uses CAP (Carrierless Amplitude Phase) or DMT (discrete multi-tone) to MOdulate the digital signals onto an analog medium and DEModulate the analog signals back into ATM cells or Ethernet frames.
Keep attempting to be technical. We'll all still be here when you get back...
Actually, Cisco calls its 675 a "modem":
"The Cisco 675 is an Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line (ADSL) modem"
http://www.cisco.com/univercd/cc/td/doc/product/ds l_prod/c600s/c675/c675inop/0467501 .htm
That's good enough to establish "common usage" for me. :-)
kb
They claim that they should work in any system that's at least 550 MHz. If you need that much processing power for a DSL modem to be hardly noticible (which is what I suppose they mean, maybe less than 20-30% processor usage), then can you imagine playing Quake 3 or UT on the net? Just your modem would be pulling a large percentage of your FPS, which would not make these people very happy.
56k WinModems are fine; even though they may be a little buggy, at least the data transfer rate doesn't require a dedicated Pentium II-class chip just to run.
Give me my hardware DSL modem, or the lovely ethernet-based cable modem i'm going to get in a few months.
The best thing about Winmodems is you can update the firmware. The worst thing about Winmodems is you can update the firmware. Winmodems tend to be buggy, CPU-hungry beasts whose firmware is updated frequently because of it. They tend to be very unreliable. (Don't believe me? Call up your favorite ISP and ask THEIR opinion of Winmodems.) The article says it'll run fine in a 550MHz system. And they're targeting it at under-$1500 computers? Can you get a Coppermine system for that price, WITH the DSL modem? (Think Gateway, Dell, etc., not parts-from-eBay.) Besides, DSL devices are fairly cheap for the bandwidth you're getting. You have a couple of choices: avoid the issue altogether by getting an EXTERNAL device, like the Cisco 675, or write software drivers for your favorite OS. Will Motorola allow this to be done? Who knows.
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Maybe we will get decent drivers support this time...and not have to go through the hoops of trying to get a "56k" winmodem to connect at speeds > 28.8.
:)
and a QNX driver for an i-opener would be good too
Steven V.
I patented screwing your mom. But it got revoked for "prior art."
Hopefully this will not prove to be as useless as the winmodem fiasco. I can't believe engineers would take something easily done in hardware, and waste precious clockcycles with it. I stopped buying and using modems a while ago, so I don't know if there are any improvements as of late, but I do know that Motorola makes generally good stuff, so hopefully this won't suck out loud for Linux users. I remember trying to get a winmodem to work in windows. It didn't even work in the environment it was designed for.
There's a lady who knows
.alarmed now
.
All the systems and nodes
And she's DSLing a Modem to Heaven
She telnets there, she knows
All the ports have been closed
With a nerd she can get
Files she came for
Woohoohoo
Woo Hoo Hoo HooHoo
And she's DSLing a Modem to Heaven
There's a first post to get
But she wants to be sure
Cos she knows sometimes DSL has
Two meanings
In a path by the NIC
There's a burdvax that pings
Sometimes all of our flames
are cross-posted
Woohoohoo
Woo Hoo Hoo HooHoo
And she's DSLing a Modem to Heaven
And it's processed by root
Unix Labs will reboot
Slashdot will then listen to reason
And a prompt will reload
For those yet to logon
And the networks will echo much faster
Woohoohoo
Woo Hoo Hoo HooHoo
And she's DSLing a Modem to Heaven
If there's a lookup in your netstat
don't be
it's just a flaming from the link queen
Yes there are two routes you can type in
but in the long run
there's still time to change the net you're on
And as we find stuff to download
We ftp and we chmod
There was a sysadm we know
Who changed the server to her own
She had root privs and she used chown
She hacked out on the DDN
And if you tail her stdin
Then you will find the karma you had lost
And get it back with cpio
To be a hack and not a troll...
And she's DSLing a Modem to Heaven. .
.
Take all good things in moderation, including moderation.
Unfortunately the side-effect of this is that people won't realize they're taking a big performance hit.
Software modems, for the driver problems, aren't that big of a deal on windows because the Modem isn't using much processor time anyways.
But this thing sounds like a real hog -- they couldn't implement it until now because anything below a P3-550 couldn't run it? This sounds like a great way for Intel to sell more processors.
The folks who really appreciate high-speed access (other than Warez d00ds and Pr0n Kings) are gamers, and this is really gonna suck for folks who think they're getting a great deal, only to boot up and wonder why their new P3-1000 is slower playing Diablo 2 than their old P2-233 on a dial-up.
And then of course the driver issues, when Loki comes out with Diablo 2/Linux (maybe?)...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
My Ameritech DSL modem required installation from a Win98-only CDROM for drivers (had to run a few .exe's) and this was 9 months ago... I don't know if someone has ported drivers to Linux/etc for it too... but looks to me like they've already been doing this for a while.
I really don't see why people think this is a bad thing. In exactly the same way that the existance of winmodems is not bad IMO.
As long as "normal" modems and "normal" DSL modems are still available also, this can only bring more choice to consumers.
It is good IMO that someone who only ever uses operating systems for which drivers are available, and who can spare the CPU time can have the choice of cheaper hardware.
Okay, in an ideal world all OSs would be supported and the specs would be freely available, but better that some people have the choice of cheaper hardware then none at all.
-- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz
It transmits its signal over telephone lines, but broadcasting is what you want to avoid.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I find it interesting nobody is flaming this WinDSL solution for its blocking out of alternate OS users. Of course on /. an alternate OS is Linux, but to the rest of the world, this is still a closed product incompatible with their systems. Meaning that anybody that uses BeOS or OS/2 or even WindowsNT in some cases will not be able to use this modem. This is even bad for the embedded product market because a lot of them are running customs OSs, or something like QNX or BeIA, and these products won't be able to use this DSL, even though it would be ideal for it. And iOpener, for example, has a 200MHz processor, and is only used for web browsing, so it is easily capable of supporting the extra overhead of software DSL. Another thing that I don't see mentioned is exactly what market this is targeted at. There is no such thing as cheap DSL. In most parts of the country, DSL costs $40-$50 a month, (unless you are lucky enough to live in the midwest where one can get 1.5 mbps DSL for $29.95 a month!) and thus any $50 or even $100 savings on the cost of the modem isn't likely to expand the market much. On top of that you have the fact that most of the more expensive routers and such have large rebates attached (I'm getting a Netopia router for $200 after rebate) so in the end hardware costs really aren't significant in a DSL purchase.
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I do agree with most postings here that I don't want such a modem on my main computer. But I do think this opens up an opportunity for the Linux-based embedded system market.
Why not integrate the modem with a standalone firewall/proxy/mailserver/... box like e.g. the cobalt cube ? That could be a nice application for such softmodems.
/ol
I asked one ISP (happens to use Covad) about the security implications of this and he admitted that there were serious security issues. But said something to the effect of "the average user doesn't know the difference and wouldn't know what to do if he did" (or words to that effect). Nice attitude. (This should not be taken to imply that I believe this is Covad's attitude. This was an ISP that just happened to use Covad.)
If all xDSL offers is nothing more than what cable modems offer, it seems to me that the latter is the better deal. (I read a recent study that suggests that the "congestion" problem that xDSL providers like to say is the big disadvantage to cable modems really isn't much of a problem, after all.) In fact: I'm not so sure that ISDN isn't the best deal. At least with ISDN you can get a couple of phone lines in with the deal. Then there's Metricom's wireless Ricochet system. (Coming soon to my neighborhood.) And other wireless offerings on the near (?) horizon.
Until & unless a DSL provider can truly make it worth my while--in the way of value-added features above and beyond the alternatives--I'll pass.
Well, you're half-right. There is such a thing as a DSL modem - however - the term modem is incorrect for it. It's kind of like saying that Seahorses are not horses. Technically, you are right but the name is still there to stay.
kwsNI
http://www.corporate-ir.net/ireye/ir_site.zhtml?ti cker=mot&script=410&layout=7&item_id=865 82 For some reason the ahref didn't show up???
If there is good Linux support, then I really don't see too much of a problem with this. I wonder if they will be able to pump some new "features" into DSL modems? The only thing I don't like is my surfing the web, slowing down my RC5 keyrate. :-)
I wonder if there will be Mac support? The G4 is kinda meant to handle signal processing and packet routing... that would make good use of the Altivec unit...
Ryan
"Don't nargin your MEX files!" - Matlab