Doomguy, where did you hear about the v.92 drivers? Are they just part of the latest 5.92 set?
Anyways. . .
There are a number of reasons to avoid higher priced "hard modems," especially those made by 3Com/USR, in favor of a common PCI winmodem.
1)
Winmodems are dirt cheap.
While a good Lucent LT or Rockwell/Conexant HCF winmodem can easily be found for less than $10 US (see
PriceWatch) the cheapest hardware modem costs nearly four times as much: $36 plus shipping and handling. And for a 3Com part, you'll pay even more. By contrast, you can sometimes find winmodems for $5 or even for free with special promotions.
Everything else we put in our computers is subject to a price/performance ratio. In other words, if the performance of a more expensive part does not scale linearly with its price, we don't buy it. (RDRAM, anyone?) The same reasoning must be applied to hardware modems. They certainly don't perform four times as well as winmodems of a quarter the price, and as we'll see, they often don't perform any better at all.
2)
Ping times and throughput are not an issue.
Modern Winmodems such as those based on the Lucent LT chipset will display ping times below 100ms and connect speeds around 48000, which is more than adequate for any Internet activity, including online gaming. Any recent softmodem -- especially the HCF variety, where the hardware handles a bit more of the duty -- should exhibit similar performance. Below, a cut and paste job from a generic Lucent LT v.90 PCI, which sells for as low as $9 on PriceWatch:
C:\WINDOWS>ping -n 10 router.infoserve.net
Pinging router.infoserve.net [199.175.157.4] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=101ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=90ms TTL=253
Reply from 199.175.157.4: bytes=32 time=105ms TTL=253
Ping statistics for 199.175.157.4:
Packets: Sent = 10, Received = 10, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 105ms, Average =
98ms
You may object that pinging an ISP would always yield good results. Actually, it's the only fair way to compare latency between modems. Pinging your ISP reduces the number of variables down to three: your modem's performance, the quality of your phone lines, and the nature of your ISP's modem pool. If we were to compare modems by pinging a fixed point on the Internet, we would quickly introduce several more uncontrolled variables: Internet traffic, server load, number of hops, etc.
Even if you ping your own ISP with an expensive hardware modem, I think you'll find it extremely difficult to match these numbers.
Not bad for $9, eh?
3)
CPU utilization is minimal.
One of the main arguments against winmodems has been that they consume CPU cycles. Fortunately, manufacturers have always made sure to set minimum CPU guidelines so that the effect is not noticeable. If CPU usage was ever a problem, it certainly isn't today.
CPU power has increased many, many times faster than the technology behind softmodems. For instance, the CPU usage of a typical winmodem hovers below 5% on a Celeron 333. This is in the range of the power required by Windows to spin an hourglass cursor; it's certainly not something that will eat into your game play significantly. Once again, we see the benifit of an HCF winmodem solution, where the onboard DSP relieves much of the stress on the CPU. And now we have people running around with 1 GHz processors. Any drop in frame rate will barely be measurable, let alone visible.
4)
They are reliable.
In my consulting business, I've sold dozens of PC's equipped with the cheapest Winmodems I could find. Only one has ever come back with a genuine hardware defect.
Many ISP support techs have a grudge against winmodems because they feel these types of modems are responsible for an innordinate number of support calls. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, almost all new computers sold today use winmodems; a person with a new computer and a modem problem will likely be using a winmodem, simply because they are more prevalent. Second, winmodems actually require the drivers they ship with. A new PC user who can't tell the difference between his RAM and his hard drive space will feel his eyes glaze over when confronted with a manual telling him how to install softmodem drivers. Instinct tells him to phone his "Internet guys" and get them to help.
In truth, winmodems are no more apt to fail than hardware modems, and probably less so, because they have fewer electronic components.
5)
Driver/OS support is excellent.
The Lucent LT, for example, supports Windows 2000, Windows 9x, Linux (see [L]http://www.linmodems.org[/L] under the Vendor section), and even the obscure BeOS. Lucent also seems comitted to releasing a new driver every few months, which means your modem's performance will always be as high as possible.
6)
Affordable broadband Internet technology puts any analogue modem to shame.
Anyone using the Internet for more than email and chat sees the need for widely available broadband Internet access to replace our antiquated 56k connections. Trying to enjoy streaming audio or video over a modem connection is like trying to sip a thick milkshake through a thin straw. With the availability and affordability of high speed Internet access growing at a steady rate, it would be foolish to invest more than the minimum amount in modem technology that is already obsolete.
So when you consider the facts, there are very few valid reasons to avoid winmodems.
Modus