home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!icdoc!cc.ic.ac.uk!carrion.cc.ic.ac.uk!vulture
- From: vulture@carrion.cc.ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
- Subject: Re: Serial and Parallel interface ??????
- Message-ID: <1992Jul21.205557.29123@cc.ic.ac.uk>
- Date: 21 Jul 92 19:55:56 GMT
- References: <BrKAoH.4Gp@news.cso.uiuc.edu> <zgam_3l.wolfgang@netcom.com> <clemon.08gc@lemsys.UUCP>
- Reply-To: cmaae47@cc.ic.ac.uk
- Organization: Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine
- Lines: 29
- Nntp-Posting-Host: cscgc
-
- In article <clemon.08gc@lemsys.UUCP>, clemon@lemsys.UUCP (Craig Lemon VE3XCL) writes:
- -- In article <zgam_3l.wolfgang@netcom.com> wolfgang@netcom.com (Wolfgang Henke) writes:
-
- -- >The serial line is not the bottleneck. The telephone line limits the
- -- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- -- >throughput.
- -- >
- --
- -- On some systems, particularly with multitasking OS's, it is. Not
- -- everyone has the processors or UARTS for a couple 57600 bps ports and
- -- everything else that needs to be taken care of in the background.
-
- Ouch.
-
- Even mint condition 1981 PCs are able to transfer 250 kbit/s through a serial
- line, bit serial, analog, via the floppy disk controller. So far I have only
- seen one machine incapable of maintining flow control and timing on floppy
- disk transfers, and that also only in very special conditions.
-
- It is just that serial (RS232) ports were perceived to be slow and in need of
- very careful processing. Thus the OSes start creaking, sort of like anything
- that tries to shovel tons of coal with an elaborate golden teaspoon.
-
- Thomas
- --
- *** This is the operative statement, all previous statements are inoperative.
- * email: cmaae47 @ cc.ic.ac.uk (Thomas Sippel - Dau) (uk.ac.ic.cc on Janet)
- * voice: +44 715 895 111 x4937 or 4934 (day), or +44 718 239 497 (fax)
- * snail: Imperial College Center for Computing Services, Kensington SW7 2BX
-