Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by Jeffrey Rhode » Thu, 28 Aug 1997 04:00:00




> Hi Everyone...

> Can someone tell me what the difference between the Bitsurfer Pro and
> the Bitsurfer EZ is? Form what I read, it looks like the EZ gives you
> more features and cost $100 less. What am I missing?

> Thanks!

> Jim

The EZ version does not support synchronous mode operation, which is
no big loss since that requires a synchronous port on a PC or router
to be useful. On the otherhand, if you do have this kind of setup,
it will answer a PPP and MPPP caller, something that neither external
BSPro can do in asynchronous PPP mode (according to Motorola ISG).

I wonder if the BSPro internal is able to support answering a PPP
call, since I would guess it does not need to convert to async PPP?

Although I've never tried it on the BSPro, I have noticed that with
two Hayes System Adapters in synchronous mode, 19200bps async is
possible on a clear channel. So MAYBE, if two BSPros had their
COM ports set to 19200, PPP would be supported on an ISDN 64K data
call. Want to try? Maybe we can get on the David Letterman show for
Stupid ISDN Tricks!

--

 
 
 

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by Jim Arche » Fri, 29 Aug 1997 04:00:00



> The EZ version does not support synchronous mode operation, which is
> no big loss since that requires a synchronous port on a PC or router
> to be useful. On the otherhand, if you do have this kind of setup,

Ah, OK. Thanks. Yes, this is no big loss for me.

Quote:> it will answer a PPP and MPPP caller, something that neither external
> BSPro can do in asynchronous PPP mode (according to Motorola ISG).

This *is* a big loss! I didn't realize that the Bitsurfer Pro can't do
PPP-MP without a syncronous port! I'm pretty bummed out about that! I'll
have to figure out how to handle that. I guess two BS Pro's can still do
BUNDLING (however its spelled) which is OK if I have a BS Pro on each
end, but I don't. I was planning on using a BS Pro to talk to a ZyXEL
OmniTA128 using PPP-MP over DOV. I can't do that?

Quote:> Although I've never tried it on the BSPro, I have noticed that with
> two Hayes System Adapters in synchronous mode, 19200bps async is
> possible on a clear channel. So MAYBE, if two BSPros had their
> COM ports set to 19200, PPP would be supported on an ISDN 64K data
> call. Want to try? Maybe we can get on the David Letterman show for
> Stupid ISDN Tricks!

Sure. I would like to try it, Letterman not withstanding <Grin>!
Currently, I have an ISDN line plugged into a Courier I modem, and no
ISDN numbers to call. I have tested a little ISDN. I can connect one B
channel as CSD. I have not bees able to connect DOV to anything,
especially a BS Pro. My BS Pro should arrive by Tuesday, so soon I'll
have one of each. I currently have MCI for LD calls. I called them up,
and they said they didn't have to do anything special to carry my ISDN
dial-up calls. I had them add my second DN to my account. I hope they
are right.

If you want to try anything else, just let me know!

Jim

 
 
 

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by Bryan Pik » Fri, 29 Aug 1997 04:00:00


The big plus for using the BSP EZ is the auto sensing of the "switch type"
out on the street.

 As anyone can attest, NYNEX has no clue with ISDN service.

I deal with installing ISDN as part of my job, and have had NYNEX respond
to the question of

"What is the switch type" with such mysterious answers as ORM, not a NT-1
or AT&T Multipoint etc...

Anyone have a guess where the ORM came from...someones initials....I've had
several 800-get-isdn droids give me that answer?????

Anyway I've installed 4 of these this month and they synced up to ISDN
switch with the Motorola GUI auto install software that comes on the CD.

The software must just flip through switch types until it finds one that
syncs up....not exactly rocket science

EZ is definitely the way to go.
--
Bryan Pike
Corporate Sales Executive
iCi  "The Internet Connection, Inc."
800-234-0002 x1151
fax 508-261-0430




> > Hi Everyone...

> > Can someone tell me what the difference between the Bitsurfer Pro and
> > the Bitsurfer EZ is? Form what I read, it looks like the EZ gives you
> > more features and cost $100 less. What am I missing?

> > Thanks!

> > Jim

> The EZ version does not support synchronous mode operation, which is
> no big loss since that requires a synchronous port on a PC or router
> to be useful. On the otherhand, if you do have this kind of setup,
> it will answer a PPP and MPPP caller, something that neither external
> BSPro can do in asynchronous PPP mode (according to Motorola ISG).

> I wonder if the BSPro internal is able to support answering a PPP
> call, since I would guess it does not need to convert to async PPP?

> Although I've never tried it on the BSPro, I have noticed that with
> two Hayes System Adapters in synchronous mode, 19200bps async is
> possible on a clear channel. So MAYBE, if two BSPros had their
> COM ports set to 19200, PPP would be supported on an ISDN 64K data
> call. Want to try? Maybe we can get on the David Letterman show for
> Stupid ISDN Tricks!

> --


 
 
 

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by Jim Jo » Fri, 29 Aug 1997 04:00:00


Aside from the sync/async business, the EZ has a faster UART.  The Pro was
limited to 115.2 kbps on the serial port, the EZ will do 230 kbps.  Only
useful if you're connection to another EZ.

Later...

 
 
 

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by Mark Cooperste » Fri, 29 Aug 1997 04:00:00



>Aside from the sync/async business, the EZ has a faster UART.  The Pro was
>limited to 115.2 kbps on the serial port, the EZ will do 230 kbps.  Only
>useful if you're connection to another EZ.

>Later...

En contraire Pierre... The BitSURFR PRO could definately handle 230 kbps, I
use this way all the time with a TurboCom Port 920 16750 board.

**  Remove ".nospam" when replying or email will bounce back to you...

 
 
 

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by Mark B Fost » Sat, 30 Aug 1997 04:00:00



Quote:

>...snip...Motorola officially supports 230400bps COM ports using Rev L
>firmware, unofficial reports claim that non-EZ Bitsurfr Pros supported
>2304000bps before Rev L.

Pre-Rev L did 230K but not autobaud.

Does Rev L include 230K in the autobaud group ?

Does the EZ ?

-mark

Disclaimer: personal opinion, not the company line.

 
 
 

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by Jim Jo » Sat, 30 Aug 1997 04:00:00


Quote:>Misinformed.

Yes, sorry.  Misinformed by Motorola -- this is what they told me when I
asked about the difference between the Pro and the EZ.

Gee, if I can't rely on the factory for accurrate info, where CAN I get it?!

Thanks for your insights.

Later...

 
 
 

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by James C. Owe » Sun, 31 Aug 1997 04:00:00




[snip]

>This *is* a big loss! I didn't realize that the Bitsurfer Pro can't do
>PPP-MP without a syncronous port! I'm pretty bummed out about that! I'll
>have to figure out how to handle that. I guess two BS Pro's can still do
>BUNDLING (however its spelled) which is OK if I have a BS Pro on each
>end, but I don't. I was planning on using a BS Pro to talk to a ZyXEL
>OmniTA128 using PPP-MP over DOV. I can't do that?

[snip]

The BS Pro cannot *answer* a PPP or MLPPP connection. It fully supports PPP and
MLPPP as a client (i.e. dialing out).

R/

James C. Owens

Windows NT 4.0 Server (Build 1381: Service Pack 3) running on a
Tyan Tomcat III (S1563D) 430HX MB, 2xP55C 166 MHz processors,
128 MB RAM, 2 ST32550W, 1 XP34301W, and 1 ST43400N HD's.

 
 
 

Bitsurfer Pro vs EZ

Post by Jim Arche » Mon, 01 Sep 1997 04:00:00



> Not quite true. Running a 115200 serial port speed still places a
> small
> bottleneck on even 2B 56k operation. Remember that the serial port is
> asynchronous, while the 2x56k throughput of 2B 56k operation is
> synchronous.
> This means that the bandwidth on the serial port required to support
> full 2x56k
> operation is 2*56000/.85=131764 => greater than the 115200 available.
> Or looking
> at it the other way, the maximum synchronous conversion throughput
> that a 115200
> bps serial port can accept is 115200*0.85=97920 => max channel
> utilization at
> serial port saturation in this configuration is
> 100*97920/112000=87.4%. Of
> course, as you point out, the bottleneck is even worse at 128000 2B
> throughput
> => max channel utilization in the 2B 64k case using a 115200 bps
> serial port
> would be 76.5%. (I.e. one is getting 1.5 B instead of 2B throughput.)

This is all true, but not the best reason to get a high speed serial
port. TAs have compression built in. The compression is between the TAs,
so if you get data 128Kbps, and it is compressed 2:1, you will want it
to come from the TA to your PC at 256Kbps. Text data, like web pages,
may compress even better than 2:1, so youll really want an even faster
serial port. If the TA has a port that goes to 460Kbps, then you'll be
missing out if your port can't keep up!

Jim

 
 
 

1. Bitsurfer Pro / Pro EZ

 A couple of catalogs I've seen carry the Bitsurfer Pro EZ for under $300,
and the (older) Pro version for $100 over that. Are there any features
present in the Pro that are missing in the Pro EZ? It does not appear so
from the specs.... Will the Pro be upgradable to do compression?

Thanks,

Michael
--
Michael Polymenakos+----------------------------- http://www.panix.com/~mpoly

     New York      | sits with folded hands or sleeps is blind." -  Sophocles

2. winkbkm

3. BS Pro vs: BS Pro EZ?

4. HP Officejet 710

5. BitSurfer vs. BitSurfer Pro?

6. Integer FFT

7. Bitsurfer vs. Bitsurfer Pro

8. gettingl line number on the left or right side of the window

9. Motorola Bitsurfer vs Bitsurfer PRO

10. BitSurfer vs. BitSurfer Pro

11. Bitsurfer Pro EZ

12. Analog ports not ringing on Bitsurfer Pro EZ