home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: giskard.demon.co.uk!dale
- From: dale@giskard.demon.co.uk (Dale Shuttleworth)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
- Subject: Re: UART or ESP ??
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 1996 21:43:56 GMT
- Organization: Dale's home Linux box.
- Message-ID: <Dn1Lp8.16s@giskard.demon.co.uk>
- References: <e0b_9602100600@aisbbs.com> <DMq53E.2L@giskard.demon.co.uk> <4g5nul$1q1@bud.shadow.net> <4gakpm$qg@news1.is.net>
- X-NNTP-Posting-Host: giskard.demon.co.uk
- X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
-
- Hi,
-
- Ricky Lacy (rlacy@hayes.com) wrote:
- : In article <4g5nul$1q1@bud.shadow.net>, benny@shadow.net says...
- : >If you run DSZ it supports the enhanced FIFO chip on the ESP board. but
- : >any run of the mill terminal download protocol will only support up to a
- : >16550 so a ESP board would be a waste of money in that sense
- :
- : Not really true. Even if your software only supports the 16550, the ESP will
- : kick in it's big 1,024 byte buffers and will also do it's own flow control.
- : Both of these are significant benefits over the 16550.
-
- But they are only significant benefits to people who are having
- problems with 16550s. Whilst your board might be very nice, it only
- provides significant benefits to an insignificant number of people.
-
- I might even make some claims that large buffers can hurt performance
- in latency critical applications :-)
-
- Dale.
- --
- ******************************************************************************
- * Dale Shuttleworth *
- * Email: dale@giskard.demon.co.uk *
- ******************************************************************************
-