Faxing Having DSL vs No Dial Tone

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

Bob,

1. I have replied since I am appalled at the lack of good information that
you have received to date.

2. You can still use the built in faxing features of Windows XP. You will
have to connect your phone line to your built in fax modem card. I would
recommend using a line that goes to a phone, then to your computer, so that
the computer won't be the first device to see the incoming signal, and answer
the phone if the modem is configured to do so. (see below ascii diagram)

Standard PSTN Existing Existing
Phone Line in to <-----------> Telephone <------------> Fax Modem
Home Handset on
'puter

3. You can send faxes over the internet for free. There is a website where
you can download a small application, and send faxes to the majority of the
country, and world, for free. The website is http://www.tpc.int/ and while
the client may seem a bit odd, it does work. I also am a paying member of
the EFAX service, however, I do check to see if I can send my faxes by TPC
first, and only send via EFAX if TPC cannot connect.

I hope that this clarifies your options, and I wish you the best of luck.

Please send any questions to my hotmail address...

Regards,

Jim Noble.

"Bob Holiday" wrote:

> I recently switched from dial-up to DSL. Using WinXP's built-in faxing
> capabilities, how do I now get my internal dial-up modem to dial for faxing
> purposes, now that I have DSL? Or can I somehow fax through DSL? WinXP
> faxing worked fine when I had dial-up internet service. But now when I
> attempt to send a fax, I get error messages that there's no dial tone. What
> do I need to set or re-set?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

Thank goodness you rescued us. What part of your post did you not find
in previous replies?
------
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]

J. Noble wrote:
> Bob,
>
> 1. I have replied since I am appalled at the lack of good information that
> you have received to date.
>
> 2. You can still use the built in faxing features of Windows XP. You will
> have to connect your phone line to your built in fax modem card. I would
> recommend using a line that goes to a phone, then to your computer, so that
> the computer won't be the first device to see the incoming signal, and answer
> the phone if the modem is configured to do so. (see below ascii diagram)
>
> Standard PSTN Existing Existing
> Phone Line in to <-----------> Telephone <------------> Fax Modem
> Home Handset on
> 'puter
>
> 3. You can send faxes over the internet for free. There is a website where
> you can download a small application, and send faxes to the majority of the
> country, and world, for free. The website is http://www.tpc.int/ and while
> the client may seem a bit odd, it does work. I also am a paying member of
> the EFAX service, however, I do check to see if I can send my faxes by TPC
> first, and only send via EFAX if TPC cannot connect.
>
> I hope that this clarifies your options, and I wish you the best of luck.
>
> Please send any questions to my hotmail address...
>
> Regards,
>
> Jim Noble.
>
> "Bob Holiday" wrote:
>
>
>>I recently switched from dial-up to DSL. Using WinXP's built-in faxing
>>capabilities, how do I now get my internal dial-up modem to dial for faxing
>>purposes, now that I have DSL? Or can I somehow fax through DSL? WinXP
>>faxing worked fine when I had dial-up internet service. But now when I
>>attempt to send a fax, I get error messages that there's no dial tone. What
>>do I need to set or re-set?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

Russ,

In response to your obvious insecurity, as seen by your sarcasm in the first
sentence below;

> Thank goodness you rescued us. What part of your post did you not find
> in previous replies?

You ask, “What part of your post did you not find in previous replies?�

Well, for one, clarity. There was no single post that showed this end user
all of his options, nor was any post a simple link to the destination of the
information referenced.

There were several links, with buried information, that did not directly
answer the end-user's question, but instead, barraged them with superfluous
information, that may or may not have answered this user’s question. I have
always maintained that on message boards, bulletin boards, user relationship
panels, and in teaching, that helping someone is about teaching them, and
providing simple, clear answers out of their questions.

It seems that this particular thread had gone down the path of “throwing a
book at the user and shouting “RTFM�.

It was just simply a number of people who desired to help, but did not
follow through.

I am not out to seek a flame war, nor will I reply to any responses on this
topic, I simply hope that you and the others here, take a position to assist
some of these people with a “pinch of empathy�. Not everyone can absorb the
technical solutions as quickly and easily as you can, and it helps them for
you to think about their struggle when replying.

Just my 2¢, YMMV.

GoodNub.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.configuration_manage,microsoft.public.windowsxp.print_fax (More info?)

It was hardly insecurity. It was curiosity. You were the one who started off
with a strong indictment of the help provided in this thread to date. Why,
you were "appalled" at how bad it was. Since I try my best to be helpful
when I post, I went back to see what I and the others had done so badly. I
just couldn't find any information that had been left out or that was even
all that unclear.
You'd never get a flame war from me. Heck, I am most grateful for any other
helpful posts that are made in this group and hope you keep doing so. We
need all the help we can get. I most certainly welcome any clarifications to
my posts because it's hard to know at what technical level the original
poster might be. Most posters are likely above mine, actually, since I don't
work in this field at all. It might go over better, however, if you did so
without insulting everyone who posted before you.
--
Russ Valentine
[MVP-Outlook]
"J. Noble" <JNoble@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:5CCB097C-1524-468C-9817-5DBBF1BDF32E@microsoft.com...
> Russ,
>
> In response to your obvious insecurity, as seen by your sarcasm in the
> first
> sentence below;
>
>> Thank goodness you rescued us. What part of your post did you not find
>> in previous replies?
>
> You ask, "What part of your post did you not find in previous replies?"
>
> Well, for one, clarity. There was no single post that showed this end
> user
> all of his options, nor was any post a simple link to the destination of
> the
> information referenced.
>
> There were several links, with buried information, that did not directly
> answer the end-user's question, but instead, barraged them with
> superfluous
> information, that may or may not have answered this user's question. I
> have
> always maintained that on message boards, bulletin boards, user
> relationship
> panels, and in teaching, that helping someone is about teaching them, and
> providing simple, clear answers out of their questions.
>
> It seems that this particular thread had gone down the path of "throwing a
> book at the user and shouting "RTFM".
>
> It was just simply a number of people who desired to help, but did not
> follow through.
>
> I am not out to seek a flame war, nor will I reply to any responses on
> this
> topic, I simply hope that you and the others here, take a position to
> assist
> some of these people with a "pinch of empathy". Not everyone can absorb
> the
> technical solutions as quickly and easily as you can, and it helps them
> for
> you to think about their struggle when replying.
>
> Just my 2¢, YMMV.
>
> GoodNub.
>

 

[Barry]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 08:10:31 -0500, "Bob Harris"
<rharris270[SPAM]@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Consider this alternative:
>
>Scan the item you want to FAX.
>
>Save the scanned image as something common, like JPG, GIF, or even PDF (see
>note below).
>
>Send an email instead of a FAX, with the image attached.

Bob

I like this idea but was wondering if it is possible to simply
fax the scanned image. If so, how would this be done?

Barry

{snip}