From owner-freebsd-hardware Wed Mar 10 15:11: 7 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from cannon.ma.ikos.com (cannon.ma.ikos.com [137.103.105.19]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 063A815058 for ; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 15:10:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tich@cannon.ma.ikos.com) Received: from lonesome.ma.ikos.com (lonesome [137.103.105.44]) by cannon.ma.ikos.com (8.9.1/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA17717; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:11:19 -0500 (EST) From: Richard Cownie Received: (from tich@localhost) by lonesome.ma.ikos.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA20812; Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:11:18 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 10 Mar 1999 18:11:18 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199903102311.SAA20812@lonesome.ma.ikos.com> To: chuckr@mat.net, tich@ma.ikos.com Subject: Re: PCI WinModem Cc: dan@wolf.com, freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG, vev@michvhf.com Sender: owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >How do you define good performance? They slow down your cpu doing I measured a download rate of 5.5KB/sec, which is a) 85% of the theoretical peak, and b) about 20% faster than the badnwidth I get using FreeBSD and a real modem (and a faster cpu). That's good performance. And I didn't notice any significant slowdown while this was running - if you really want to argue that WinModem's are evil because they slow down the system you'd better come up with some numbers to make it stick. Microsoft may or may not be bad, but the fact that they've built a system which allows me to do 5.5KB/sec transfers with a $20 modem doesn't seem bad to me. You can still buy a "real" modem for more money if that's what you want, but if you want to criticize WinModem's then please come up with some substantive and quantitative argument. Richard Cownie (tich@ma.ikos.com) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hardware" in the body of the message