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.
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
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
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
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; }
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.
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.
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
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; }
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...
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
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?
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.
---
You know, even 5-15% translates to a hell of a lot of money when you consider how large the computer market is...
Yeah, but you aren't dealing with the whole computer market, just PCs.
Well, really you aren't dealing with the whole PC market, just home PCs (since its pretty damn rare to see a modem in an office)
And then you are only dealing with home PCs with DSL access available.
So now you think they really care about 5% of the home PC DSL enabled market?
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
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?
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.
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_
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 :)
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
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 : )
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 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?
Would you not take a schedule cut to 85% of your normal hours in exchange for a 30-40%/hr. pay raise?
.85) = $442/wk.
40h * $10 = $400/wk.
($10 * 1.3) * (40h *
We have a winner!
--
--
E2 IN2 IE?
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.
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).
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.
In my geographical area we get screwed. I live in a city with both Cable and DSL access (which are at each other's throats for customers right now). There are two problems though, the city is fairly spread out and the CO is downtown which means all the slums have DSL access yet I can't get it at my house which is across town. Our cable is even worse, we don't have 2-way cable service. We download over the cable line but upload using our plain old dialup service. If I ever do get DSL it will be 384kbps downstream and 128kbps upstream, all for a measly 50$ per month. I'm stuck with cable for a while which is really hard to get working under Linux.
I'm a loner Dottie, a Rebel.
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!
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.
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
Here's the motorola press release and Yes, there'll be Linux support.
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.
Unfortunatly, not that much of the market isn't windows. If you want to make a cheap piece of hardware by using software, you have to focus on the Win side to make any money... Software based isn't going to do it for anyone else anyway... Linux users are smart enough not to pay good money for software based modems. But eventually, someone on LinModems will post their drivers for it. It's bound to happen. I truly think that this is no big loss for any other community. As I can verify, being the owner of an LT Win modem, software based modems are pieces of shit. If I were a more informed geek at the time I had purchased my machine, I would have made sure to get a hardware based modem... When crap is being peddled to the masses, why be upset that they aren't marketing to you? Software based modems are, quite simply, the fast food of connectivity hardware. If you want something that is any good for you, you simply have to go with something else. Just my opinion, Dusty Hodges
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:
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...
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...
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?
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.
No, that is incorrect. A CODEC (coder/decoder) is typically used to transform analog signals to/from the digital domain. The integrated circuit that the telephone company uses to convert analog voice on subscriber loops to/from 64 KBPS digital data streams is a CODEC.
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
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???