home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!mips!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!atropa!berger
- From: berger@atropa (Mike Berger)
- Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
- Subject: Re: 16550 vs. 16550AFN
- Message-ID: <BtAt51.JD8@news.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Date: 20 Aug 92 20:05:23 GMT
- References: <1992Aug18.221918.1@vax1.umkc.edu>
- Sender: usenet@news.cso.uiuc.edu (Net Noise owner)
- Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
- Lines: 23
-
- eputnam@vax1.umkc.edu writes:
- >I was just wondering if any modem manufactures (or anyone) would still be
- >putting 16550 chips on their internal modems. The reason I ask this is that
- >I am planning on purchasing an internal 14.4kbs modem and plan to use it with
- >both OS/2 2.0 and Windows 3.1. As I understand, the 16550 is defective and
- >the chip to have is the 16550AFN. Is this correct? If so, do I need to make
- >absolutely sure that I am getting an "AFN" chip, or am I safe with any modem
- >which claims to have a 16550?
- *----
- It's not even something you should worry about. The concern is that
- the modem has to keep up with the maximum data throughput rate. If
- you use an external modem, then your computer's hardware (your serial
- port) has to be able to handle the data rate. When you use an
- internal modem, you eliminate that potential bottleneck. Who cares
- what kind of uart is used on an internal modem (or indeed, that one
- is used at all)? If the modem can handle the maximum data rate,
- then a different uart chip will make no difference at all. A modem
- doesn't have to emulate a 16550AFN to have buffering on board.
- --
- Mike Berger
- Department of Statistics, University of Illinois
- AT&TNET 217-244-6067
- Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
-