Subject: From: Date:

Re: RE: [ECS] Phone-C Daniel Dubay Mon, 24 Aug 1998 10:30:13 -0400

---

I would vote for the Phone Blaster.  It is less expensive (~$200),
easily available,  and would probably require less programming changes
for Mark.  For those people interested in greater phone functionality, a
central phone system might be better.  

Does anyone have the protocols for either of these systems yet?  We
should let Mark look at them and comment and price them out.

Dan Dubay

>>> "Michael David" <michael@michaeldavid.com> 08/23 9:38 PM >>>
Hi Ingo!

www.shopper.com (used to be computeresp.com) lists the proline 2v at
$340,
and the developers kit at $88.

I would prefer this board over any of the modems available, including
the
modem blaster.  Modems just won't cut it for the level of telephone
integration we are looking for.

Now folks, realistically, there is no way Mark can implement everything
that
we would like.  Not only is there limited time, but unless it has broad
mass
appeal it's not going to help "sell" ECS, and therefore not likely to
generate a return for his efforts.  So, the solution is for Mark to
charge a
bit for his programming time for adding extra functionality. 
Personally, I
think it's the best way to find the balance between what we want and
Mark's
need to keep his business healthy.

So Mark, if we can get folks together to pitch in, would you be
interested
in implementing this card for a fee?

Anyone have interest in pitching in for this type of project?


Cheers!

Michael David
michael@michaeldavid.com 




 -----Original Message-----
From: Ingo Dean [mailto:Ingo_Dean@mentorg.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 9:13 PM
To: ecs-list@vancouver.ml.org 
Subject: RE: [ECS] Phone-C


A quick look at http://www.pricewatch.com shows the Developer's Kit at
about
$100, and the hardware at about $350.
Though that's a little more that I'd really want to pay for the
hardware, it
would give me two lines.  Now, if ECS (W95) would spawn a thread to do
the
telephony processing in parallel with regular events (and be able to
handle
both lines simultaneously), it'd be worth it to me.  But I'd have to
save my
pennies for a little while  to afford this.   :-}
The Creative ModemBlaster I could afford now, and I think would be
easier to
implement.  But then it's still a regular TAPI/Unimodem interface with
all
their idiocyncracies.
BRANDPRODUCTDESCRIPTIONPRICESHIPPINGDATE/HRDEALERSTPART#
DIALOGIC/GAMMALINKdos dev kit for proline2/v cromdialog/4 voice boards$
102
8.008/13/98 12:43:47 PM CSTCOMPSOURCE
888-97-SOURCE
216-566-7767 OH 26-0001-01X
DIALOGIC/GAMMALINKwindows 95 dev kit for dialog/4cromproline2/v voice
boards$ 102 8.008/13/98 12:43:47 PM CSTCOMPSOURCE
888-97-SOURCE
216-566-7767 OH 26-0110-00X
DIALOGIC/GAMMALINKdialogic proline/2v 2port voiceprocessing board$ 351
Call8/2/98 11:13:45 AM CSTPCNation/Computer Warehouse Club
800-969-5255
847-498-0790
Online Ordering Available IL 99-2176-003

> -----Original Message-----> From: Wayne
[mailto:waynew@magicnet.net]>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 1998 8:19 PM> To: ecs-list@vancouver.ml.org>
Subject: Re: [ECS] Phone-C>> At 03:42 PM 8/23/98 +0000, you wrote:> >>
>From
a Dejanews post: (regarding HAL2000)> >> >  - Telephony is supported
only on
one modem card,> >> >     the ModemBlaster, with a special version of>
>> >
the firmware.> >>> >> I think this is where ECS (W95) should also head,
once
Mark is> in a position> >> where he's interested in adding new product
support.  Maybe if> one (or a> >> group?) of us would fund his time
(and a
test modem), he could> add local> >> session support to ECS (W95) using
this
modem.> >>> >> --ingo dean> >> >Count me in on that one! Who wouldn't
pay to
have local sessions> >back?> >> >Carl K>>   IF and WHEN Mark has
time/desire
to tackle this job, I think he should> seriously look at true
telephony
boards (such as Dialogic) and existing> developer kits (such as Visual
Voice
for VisualBasic) rather than one> obscure (possibly soon obsolete?)
modem
with custom firmware. > These boards> are not cheap (I think a 2 line
multitasking board is around> $300-$400), but> they are not out of the
question for QUALITY results, instead of> compromises> caused by
hardware,
etc.  I am not a programmer in this area, so there may> be some reason
Mark
cannot do this, but it sure seems worth> ivestigating to> me.  I know
HAL
has spent many months trying to make this stuff work, I> would hate to
see
Mark get caught up in this possible wild goose chase.>> For more info
about
a possible board:>
http://www.dialogic.com/products/d_sheets/2700web.htm>>
just my $.02,> Wayne>>    waynew 'at' magicnet 'dot' net,   Orlando,
FL>
http://www.magicnet.net/~waynew>

---