<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8"> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.3.2"> </HEAD> <BODY> On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 17:15 -0400, John Wirt wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <PRE> Roy, thank you very much for the detailed response. A problem may turn out to be that my Zoom modems REQUIRE being different in order to install them in Windows 2000. Or so I was told by Zoom. And, in fact, I could not install the modem drivers until I changed from two v.92 modems (same model) to one of the v.92s and an older v.90 I had. Hmmm... John </PRE> </BLOCKQUOTE> Extremely strange, leading towards a tentative conclusion that MS is doing something very weird. Again, make sure you have ther latest/greatest firmware, and trial each one independently to see if they flow at full speed. Even if they are the _same_ model, and the _same_ firmware, and the -same_ configuration being reported, they may _BE_ a different art master, chip revision level, etc., and/or one of them could be weaker on the TN line. Oftimes the tech support department of a mfg will not figure out the details, only that "you have to do A to do B"when it really is "you have to do A to install the driver, and then you can do B with two of the same". The only way to be sure is when you totally fail or succeed on one of the many alternative legs of that decision tree. Painful, but there it is ... Same for networking configurations more modern than modems: IPv6 with QoS against a modern multimedia streaming server delivering a conference video feed has the same type of problem set ... just totally different details in the solution set. But: it's the same wolf in different sheep's clothing all over again. Hope the detail pops out simply for you (publish it when it does; it is useful to _me_ to ind where a solution actually _is_ in the problem space; though it may only apply to Zoom v.9x modems, etc. ....) </BODY> </HTML>