EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 63, Issue 18 This issue's topics: the "mighty" Geoport (18 messages) Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 Apr 1994 17:33:07 -0500 From: hinkle-turner elizabeth Subject: the "mighty" Geoport Bought a Geoport the other day for my 840AV computer - figured I had lived in the non-fax, 2400 bps domain for too long. A word to the wise - if you use your computer for MIDI, don't buy a Geoport! For one thing the funky connector on the end of its cable has a weird notch in it which makes it not fit into any MIDI interface that >>I<< know of! Secondly, it only works if the sound-out on the computer is set to 24 kHz. Considering the fact that I BOUGHT the AV machine for its 44kHz 16bit audio capabilities.... I took my Geoport back to the dealer and (fortunately) had my money cheerfully refunded. Incidentally, watched the new PowerMac in action the other day. Pretty darn impressive. And the DOS and Windows emulators - pretty frighteningly realistic! Can hardly wait for my upgrade to come! Has anyone else tried one of these machines out? Elizabeth Hinkle-Turner ehturner@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 03:08:37 -0400 From: "J. M. Macknik" Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport On Sun, 3 Apr 1994, hinkle-turner elizabeth wrote: > Bought a Geoport the other day for my 840AV computer - figured I had lived > in the non-fax, 2400 bps domain for too long. A word to the wise - if you > use your computer for MIDI, don't buy a Geoport! For one thing the funky > connector on the end of its cable has a weird notch in it which makes it > not fit into any MIDI interface that >>I<< know of! Secondly, it only > works if the sound-out on the computer is set to 24 kHz. Considering the > fact that I BOUGHT the AV machine for its 44kHz 16bit audio capabilities.... > I took my Geoport back to the dealer and (fortunately) had my money > cheerfully refunded. Good to know, thanks. > Incidentally, watched the new PowerMac in action the other day. Pretty darn > impressive. And the DOS and Windows emulators - pretty frighteningly > realistic! Can hardly wait for my upgrade to come! Has anyone else tried > one of these machines out? I will be more inclined to be impressed when I see more native-mode DOS and Mac software, and when the DOS emulation uses something a bit more robust than the 286 instruction set. The DOS/Windows capabilities are a little too limited for right now to really be able to market it to any real IBM/DOS-world-savvy user...at least from what I am told. I would of course recommend to any computer-music Mac user that they wai t on getting one of these babies. If the past is any indication of our luck, most of the mainstream software won't work or will slow to a crawl. I'll wait to upgrade my Centris 650...at least until they come out with some faster chips without the bugs and Finale and Performer (and others of its kind) come out in native mode. I'm not holding my breath...Coda isn't known for its swifty development (I'm still waiting on a request I made about a year ago). However, if anyone out there did opt for one of the new Power Macs, I'd like to hear how it does with the current software and whether there is any improvement or reported bugs. Finale is a particular interest...it's the most used package around here and seems to have the most problems with upgrade mobility. So, let us know what's up with the new systems if you've got one. Thanx ---- Jim James M. Macknik Data Management Assistant Senior - Connecticut College Dept. of Academic Computing Major - Music & Technology Connecticut College VoiceMail:(203)/439-3333 x5542 Office:(203)/439-2923 E-Mail Address: jmmac@conncoll.edu Internet Address: jmmac@dsys.cc.conncoll.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 07:24:16 U From: Scott Drexel Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport REPLY o REPLY o REPLY o REPLY RE>the "mighty" Geoport > Incidentally, watched the new PowerMac in action the other day. Pretty darn > impressive. And the DOS and Windows emulators - pretty frighteningly > realistic! Can hardly wait for my upgrade to come! Has anyone else tried > one of these machines out? > > Elizabeth Hinkle-Turner > ehturner@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu We have a couple of these on campus now, and they're bad to the BONE !! 16 bit sound built in. I think that I'm going to wait for the upgraded one to come out late in the year before I buy one though. They also have the new version of SoftWindows coming out soon which will emulate a 486. The current version is blazing fast though. I also think that the only thing that windows won't do is sound YET ! They are supposed to be putting a driver for the Macs in the new version of SoftWindows. Pretty Cool!!!! See ya. Scotty D ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 11:16:23 -0500 From: Ronald Beal Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport Saw a Powermac demo on thursday...excelent machine....The windows emulation ran some of the apps better than real windows, not to mention cross platform compatibly with mac apps. I am waiting to upgrade my Quadra 610 though, because the current powermacs using softwindows cannot run window apps requiring extended memory. Supposedly it is a software bug, but I'm waiting just in case. I can't wait to see what Digidesign, Opcode, and MOTU come out with to run as native apps. It should be COOOOL! See ya around the net Atilla ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 Apr 1994 22:49:19 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport >I can't wait to see what Digidesign, Opcode, and >MOTU come out with to run as native apps. It should be COOOOL! I dOOOOOOn't necessarily think so. The downside of this increased performance is the temptation, and/or marketeer pressure, to hack in more and more features. I don't know about Digidesign, but MOTU got their backs broken with Performer at around version 3.6 (and moreso with 4.0, 4.01, 4.02, 4.1, 4.2; I have no intention of going anywhere near version 5). Opcode are doing OK with Vision 2.0, but they're going to have to watch it. I don't object to enrichment of the underlying semantic models of these packages if the hardware allows (sequencers with digital audio, for instance), but pouring in features for the hell of it (like word processors with QuickTime, yawn) is not an advancement IMHO, and if there's no semantic model to start with, one is reasonably stuffed... Oh: Geoports aren't available in the UK. They're illegal... Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 07:34:28 -0400 From: "ANDREW G. YOUNGER" Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport > > > Oh: Geoports aren't available in the UK. They're illegal... > Perhaps this is a dumb question but, why? > > Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 16:22:08 -0500 From: Brian Good Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport Elizabeth Hinkle-Turner writes: > Incidentally, watched the new PowerMac in action the other day. Pretty darn > impressive. >And the DOS and Windows emulators - pretty frighteningly > realistic! True. Though personally I'd use the disk space for something more useful. Like audio samples of my wife's cat enjoying a hairball, maybe. >Can hardly wait for my upgrade to come! Has anyone else tried > one of these machines out? Not with my own sweaty hands, but a couple Apple reps did demo an 8100 this morning. One of them claimed to be a multimedia specialist. I tried to find out how stressed the processor is doing 16-bit 44 kHz stereo audio (translation: If we all scream at Opcode, can we expect a Digidesignless Studio Vision anytime soon?), but he wasn't particularly heplful. I'm skeptical of Apple's claim that the PowerMacs don't need DSPs--they have a history of asking too much of their hardware. I'd love to be proven wrong, but in the meantime I think I'll wait for a 604. Brian Good NASA LeRC ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 23:17:23 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport > Perhaps this is a dumb question but, why? In the UK it is illegal to connect a modem, or any piece of equipment, to the public telephone system unless it has been approved in lab tests by a special organisation which acts for the phone companies. I don't know what the tests are: there are probably obvious things like making sure that the gear cannot enable mains voltages to line and blow engineers out of manholes; I've also heard rumours that modems must block calls to the emergency numbers (999 in the UK), in hardware. The downside is that modems are more expensive here as (according to modem manufacturers) new models get held up for months in the extremely expensive approval process, and for no obvious gains; American modems work here as well as UK ones; and I have no evidence that BABT-approved modems are any different to US ones. The GeoPort? All I know about it is what Apple UK's chief technical guru told us in the PowerPC roll-out, which is that the GeoPort is essentially the line drivers, with all the functionality provided in software. I ask you: a soft modem? Fantastic idea, but the authorities are not going to like it. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 Apr 1994 22:23:49 -0400 From: "ANDREW G. YOUNGER" Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport > > > Perhaps this is a dumb question but, why? > > In the UK it is illegal to connect a modem, or any piece of equipment, to > the public telephone system unless it has been approved in lab tests by a > special organisation which acts for the phone companies. I don't know what > the tests are: there are probably obvious things like making sure that the > gear cannot enable mains voltages to line and blow engineers out of > manholes; I've also heard rumours that modems must block calls to the > emergency numbers (999 in the UK), in hardware. The downside is that modems > are more expensive here as (according to modem manufacturers) new models > get held up for months in the extremely expensive approval process, and for > no obvious gains; American modems work here as well as UK ones; and I have > no evidence that BABT-approved modems are any different to US ones. I can see that this would make things VERY expensive. Its unfortunate to have to deal with such bureacracy but that's politics eh? Thanks for answering that question Nick, I would have been confused forever! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 11:58:01 -0400 From: Alper Kerman Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport > > Perhaps this is a dumb question but, why? > > In the UK it is illegal to connect a modem, or any piece of equipment, to > the public telephone system unless it has been approved in lab tests by a > special organisation which acts for the phone companies. I don't know what > the tests are: there are probably obvious things like making sure that the > gear cannot enable mains voltages to line and blow engineers out of > manholes; I've also heard rumours that modems must block calls to the > emergency numbers (999 in the UK), in hardware. The downside is that modems > are more expensive here as (according to modem manufacturers) new models > get held up for months in the extremely expensive approval process, and for > no obvious gains; American modems work here as well as UK ones; and I have > no evidence that BABT-approved modems are any different to US ones. Makes sense to me, though we should not overlook the fact that a similar process almost certainly exists in the US, for all pieces of electrical, communications, computing and a whole host of other items. The name Underwriters Labs comes to mind. It's called "standardization". We should get used to it!... ;^) Take care, The Young Turk ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 11:49:00 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport > > In the UK it is illegal to connect a modem, or any piece of equipment, to > > the public telephone system unless it has been approved in lab tests by a > > special organisation which acts for the phone companies. I don't know what > > the tests are: there are probably obvious things like making sure that the > > gear cannot enable mains voltages to line and blow engineers out of > > manholes; I've also heard rumours that modems must block calls to the > > emergency numbers (999 in the UK), in hardware. The downside is that modems > > are more expensive here as (according to modem manufacturers) new models > > get held up for months in the extremely expensive approval process, and for > > no obvious gains; American modems work here as well as UK ones; and I have > > no evidence that BABT-approved modems are any different to US ones. > > Makes sense to me, though we should not overlook the fact > that a similar process almost certainly exists in the US, > for all pieces of electrical, communications, computing > and a whole host of other items. The name Underwriters Labs > comes to mind. It's called "standardization". We should get > used to it!... ;^) I don't know if i would call it standardization. I don't know the details of the UK policies, but it is similar if not worse in Germany. There the phone company is not only a monopoly, but a government run one. No anti-trust rules gonna change that in the near future. Their "standardization" makes sure that only the products they get a cut off are allowed, plus if you dare to get a modem through them, you get charged a special modem phone rate. Meanwhile they like cruising with detector vans to determine who is using a unapproved product, or is hooked up to cable without paying. What's the difference? Well, about five years ago (mind you things have changed a little for the better) i got myself a nice button phone in the States for about $20 brought it back and it worked great (no touch-tone in Germany, just pulse, blech!) but to get the regular rotary upgraded to a button phone approved by the phone company, it would have cost about $10/month. I'll get off my soap box now... -- Arne F. Claassen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- <<< From "Netwhore Incantations": Blessed be thy MIDI implementation >>> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 15:37:03 -0400 From: Alper Kerman Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport > > > In the UK it is illegal to connect a modem, or any piece of equi> > Makes sense to me, though we should not overlook the fact > > that a similar process almost certainly exists in the US, > > for all pieces of electrical, communications, computing > > and a whole host of other items. The name Underwriters Labs > > comes to mind. It's called "standardization". We should get > > used to it!... ;^) > > I don't know if i would call it standardization. I don't know the details of > the UK policies, but it is similar if not worse in Germany. There the phone > company is not only a monopoly, but a government run one. No anti-trust rules > gonna change that in the near future. Their "standardization" makes sure that > only the products they get a cut off are allowed, plus if you dare to get a > modem through them, you get charged a special modem phone rate. Meanwhile > they like cruising with detector vans to determine who is using a unapproved > product, or is hooked up to cable without paying. What's the difference? Are you saying that they are trying to detect just modems? or any electrical product? (like TVs, Radios, Toasters, etc.) In any case, just out of curiosity, since most electrical products (appliances, modems, etc. but not including any transmitters of sort) as far as I know don't broadcast any signals (except their electro- magnetic fields within a very short perimeter), how in the world are they able to detect the different types of equipment in homes, let alone differenciating the unregistered "unapproved" ones from the others (that are registered "approved", because perhaps they were bought from the phone company)???? I don't mean to question what you've said, infact I'm sure you're correct! It's just that all the technological innovations coming about within the era we live in just blows my mind!... I guess it's like; Before THEY only had radars and we had radar-detectors, and now THEY have detectors that detect radar-detectors and we have `jack-screwed'! Sigh!...Go figure!... ;^) ~ ~ (@ @) +---o00o-(_)-o00o----+ | | | The Young Turk | | | +--------------------+ \__/\__/ _|| ||_ (__| |__) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 16:01:37 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport >> I don't know if i would call it standardization. I don't know the details of >> the UK policies, but it is similar if not worse in Germany. There the phone >> company is not only a monopoly, but a government run one. No anti-trust rules >> gonna change that in the near future. Their "standardization" makes sure that >> only the products they get a cut off are allowed, plus if you dare to get a >> modem through them, you get charged a special modem phone rate. Meanwhile >> they like cruising with detector vans to determine who is using a unapproved >> product, or is hooked up to cable without paying. What's the difference? > > Are you saying that they are trying to detect just modems? or any > electrical product? (like TVs, Radios, Toasters, etc.) > Just things that are supposed to be rgistered, i.e. TVs and telecommunication products. > In any case, just out of curiosity, since most electrical products > (appliances, modems, etc. but not including any transmitters of sort) > as far as I know don't broadcast any signals (except their electro- > magnetic fields within a very short perimeter), how in the world are > they able to detect the different types of equipment in homes, let > alone differenciating the unregistered "unapproved" ones from the > others (that are registered "approved", because perhaps they were > bought from the phone company)???? I don't mean to question what > you've said, infact I'm sure you're correct! It's just that all > the technological innovations coming about within the era we live in > just blows my mind!... > Well, it's like this (as fas as i know). There is electromagnetic radiation from anything electronic. If you are hooked up to cable but are not supposed to or if you have antenna, but have not registered, or even if you are registered but they notice radiation in excess of the tv sets that are registered, they'll try to nail you. Of their main tactic is to tell you that they are capable of more than they are, and fine those they do catch pretty heartily. Just so you don't get any wrong ideas. With phones, you are safe unless, you're phone isn't shielded by German standards (and most cheap foreign brands aren't). Then they may pick it up from time to time. It's really less the actual success of their actions but their intend that i object to. > I guess it's like; > > Before THEY only had radars and we had radar-detectors, and now THEY > have detectors that detect radar-detectors and we have `jack-screwed'! > Sigh!...Go figure!... ;^) Don't get me started, we're already way of emusic territory. But yeah it's annoying. I saw the cop and took the detector off my dash, although i did not unplug it (duuh). Next i get pulled over. Ho hum... ObligEmusicContent: verhave your cordless interfere with your rig? I have my rig and computer set up in a horseshoe shape and anytime the rig is on and i walk into the horseshoe with my cordless, it goes crazy. -- Arne F. Claassen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- <<< From "Netwhore Incantations": Blessed be thy MIDI implementation >>> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 6 Apr 1994 22:23:29 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: the "mighty" Geoport >I can see that this would make things VERY expensive. Things are very expensive anyway. ($1000 for an MTP-II anyone?) But this doesn't help... It's a shame I'm not allowed to use this TelePort modem here for sending faxes, though, since I have a friend who dreamt that a cat told him that it would work fine. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 10:39:58 +0200 From: "Michael D. Lyons" Subject: Re: EMUSIC-L Digest - 5 Apr 1994 to 6 Apr 1994 Arne F. Claassen screamed from his soapbox: > [In Germany] the phone > company is not only a monopoly, but a government run one. No anti-trust rules > gonna change that in the near future. Uh, the telecommunications portion of the Deutsche Bundespost, also known as Telekom, is being split off and privatized. > Their "standardization" makes sure that > only the products they get a cut off are allowed, plus if you dare to get a > modem through them, you get charged a special modem phone rate. This isn't quite true either. > Meanwhile > they like cruising with detector vans to determine who is using a unapproved > product, or is hooked up to cable without paying. What's the difference? Telekom owns the cable TV lines and charges for their use. Is it wrong for them to try detect illegal tapping of their lines? Should cable television be "free"? At any rate, they *don't* sneak around in vans trying to grab cable tappers. They do, as in everyplace else in the world, regulate what frequencies things like cordless telephones operate on, and, like in other coun- tries, attempt to detect and stop "pirate" use of the airwaves. > (no touch-tone in Germany, just pulse, blech!) Wrong... again. > I'll get off my soap box now... Yeah, and the next time before you climb up there again, try to get your facts straight. Mike p.s. Hi Nick! :-)))) -- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 11:16:00 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: EMUSIC-L Digest - 5 Apr 1994 to 6 Apr 1994 I guess i should have stated first that all info was based on my last experience 3 years ago, but anyway... >> [In Germany] the phone > company is not only a monopoly, but a government run one. No anti-trust rules >> gonna change that in the near future. > > Uh, the telecommunications portion of the Deutsche Bundespost, also known > as Telekom, is being split off and privatized. Ok, so that's finally happening. 5 years ago, the Bundespost hired a consulting firm to determine how to improve their business. The response was simple. Divide and privatize. At that time the suggestion was rejected as improper judgement. Since then things have changed. Nonetheless it is still a monopoly. > > Their "standardization" makes sure that > > only the products they get a cut off are allowed, plus if you dare to get a > > modem through them, you get charged a special modem phone rate. > > This isn't quite true either. This is what i was told by by father who wanted to get a modem to telecommute in Munich. I guess it's a local thing, or something. > Telekom owns the cable TV lines and charges for their use. Is it > wrong for them to try detect illegal tapping of their lines? > Should cable television be "free"? At any rate, they *don't* > sneak around in vans trying to grab cable tappers. They do, as > in everyplace else in the world, regulate what frequencies things > like cordless telephones operate on, and, like in other coun- > tries, attempt to detect and stop "pirate" use of the airwaves. True to an extend, but i do no agree with their position that if you use a phone on lines that you pay for that isn't one of their improved ones, you ought to be fined. If this policy has changed too, i stand corrected. > > Yeah, and the next time before you climb up there again, try to > get your facts straight. My facts are outdated. But my disgust for the Telecom pricing from Cable to Telephone rates has not changed. Currently it is cheaper for my parents to use a calling card from AT&T than to use Telekom for long distance. But I digress.. -- Arne F. Claassen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- <<< From "Netwhore Incantations": Blessed be thy MIDI implementation >>> ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 19:04:48 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: EMUSIC-L Digest - 5 Apr 1994 to 6 Apr 1994 >p.s. Hi Nick! :-)))) Hi there. I think I'm responsible for starting this "modem approval" thread, although I don't quite reme $~PBX UNAPPROVED MODEM DETECTED ON LINE 2259035 NO CARRIER ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 7 Apr 1994 16:03:12 -0500 From: DEMOLITION MAN Subject: Re: EMUSIC-L Digest - 5 Apr 1994 to 6 Apr 1994 REMEMBER, NICK, BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING!!!! Phil SPS5251@SIENA.BITNET ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************