Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36

To: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>
Subject: Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36
From: Kevin Smith <kevin@ascend.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 13:47:29 -0800
Cc: ascend-users@bungi.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.971127153923.12667A-100000@babylon.erols.com>
References: <3.0.5.32.19971127071136.008a5100@darla>
Sender: owner-ascend-users@max.bungi.com

At 03:42 PM 11/27/97 -0500, Jason Nealis wrote:
>
>
> Looks the same? There is a diffence in the nameing at least, As I
>detailed in my other message AP33 shows the revision of (A) and
>Ap36 shows a revision of (N). So do you guys change naming for nothing
>or is it actually a different code ? I'm guesing you guys have
>changed at least something.

"You guys" referring to Rockwell to I presume ;)

Yes, there were 3 bug-fixes in the (N) version - I posted an update to
the release-notification, but here too:

	1.140n is different from 1.140. 1.140 was in 5.0Ap33. There
	are 3 fixes:
	1. Remove a 1.3Khz tone prior to the V8bis tone. This was
	   introduced in 1.140 code. The tone can cause some modems
	   not to connect.
	2. A patch to the USR LAPM V42bis bug.
	3. New Bit Pump code version P42 to fix retrain failures
	   caused by progress tones.


Kevin


++ Ascend Users Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe:	send unsubscribe to ascend-users-request@bungi.com
To get FAQ'd:	<http://www.nealis.net/ascend/faq>

References:

Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36

From: Matt Holdrege <matt@ascend.com>

Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36

From: Jason Nealis <nealis@babylon.erols.com>

Prev by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Fatal Error
Next by Date: Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36
Prev by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36
Next by thread: Re: (ASCEND) Max 5.0Ap36
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread