Hello, Charles.

This is a "loose end" reply which I had promised back when I was still
'on speaking terms' with you, and since I promised, I'll deliver.

This is from what you wrote back on 2/17, when we were reasoning
together and discussing about - -

 CA>>> People think the 8250s and 16450s are less capable than
 CA>>> they are. From my testing 57600 is not a problem for
 CA>>> either of them.

 JH> No, my personal experience isn't relevant - - by the time I
 JH> got a 14,400 external modem, the card I had it attached to
 JH> had 15650's.

 CA> You mean 16550As?

Almost, just a typo.  But FWIW they were 16550AF, emulated on a VLB
multi-card from DTC.



 JH> What does your personal experience indicate with respect to
 JH> external modems running under Windows or other, and using
 JH> browser software to browse websites?

 CA> Short answer: all of my personal modems are internals

Seems to me that a shorter and even more accurate answer would have been
"nothing", since you haven't experimented with an external 56K modem on
an 8250 UART serial port.



 JH> The book is now in its 14th edition, and has sold well over
 JH> 2 million copies. The author has been saying that about
 JH> 8250 chips for quite awhile (in my personal experience, I
 JH> saw it in the 6th edition (1996) and in the 12th edition
 JH> (2000)). If what I quoted above is truly drivel wrt using
 JH> an external modem, seems like some sharp-shooting
 JH> gunslinger would have blown the author out of the saddle
 JH> over that by now.

 CA> And was promptly ignored. Want more untested unrealistic
 CA> information? Ask Linux users what the minimum hardware required
 CA> for an install is.

Hey,  I won't be distracted by your trying to change the subject, while
simultaneously baiting for Linux users. 



 JH> But its not too late for you to put a notch on your
 JH> six-shooter - - in the book, it is suggested that - "If you
 JH> have any questions about PC hardware, suggestions for the
 JH> next version of the book, or any comments in general, send
 JH> them to Scott via email at scottmueller{at}compuserve.com I'm
 JH> sure he'd be glad to hear from you.

 CA> Maybe I could rewrite parts of his book and become a
 CA> 'footnote'! I think not.

I wish you'd reconsider and give it a try, since both of us are
clearly interested in truth, justice, and etc.

 JH> After you finish that, there is more error out there which
 JH> seems to need fixing, since I read this week at USRobotics
 JH> website that "In general, if you have a 28.8 Kbps modem or
 JH> faster, you will need a 16550 UART." So you may as well
 JH> straighten them out also, while you're at it.

 CA> Whoever wrote that has never tried it.

You admit you haven't tried it, and since they are modem mfgrs, I gotta
believe that they have. I'll stick with them for now.



 JH> I got myself into this by cautioning Wayne C. about going
 JH> out and buying an- - "external 56 serial modem, TBOMK the
 JH> 8250 won't support that speed. Corrections welcomed if I'm
 JH> wrong."

 JH> So, perhaps you are correct about the null modem connection
 JH> and I'm correct about the external 56K modem??

 CA> No, I'm right and you are wrong (and so is your book and USR's
 CA> website).

Pretty sure of yourself, aren't you, for someone who has never tried a
56K external modem on a 8250 serial port? I think I have a plan
whereby we can resolve this (see below).

 JH> In any event, I haven't heard from you or anyone else here
 JH> about successfully using browser software and surfing the
 JH> net with an external 56K modem connected to an 8250 UART.

 CA> What demands do you envision a browser will place upon the UART
 CA> that GSZ doing a zmodem transfer wouldn't? I don't get your
 CA> point?

 CA> If GSZ can maintain theoretical max transfer rates using the
 CA> 8250 and 16450 UARTs why do you think a lowly 'browser' is
 CA> going to increase the 'load'????

 CA> If it is your assumption that a graphical OS and browser will
 CA> rob CPU cycles and cause the UART to 'fault' then it's the CPU
 CA> and/or OS inability to properly multitask that is at fault and
 CA> not the UART.

Hmm.  Are you looking for an 'escape route' just in case it won't
work, so you can claim that Windows is actually the culprit?

I think the additional overhead from Windows and browser while surfing
the net will have more to do with IRQ interrupt calls disrupting the
function of the serial port.

 CA> The 8250 and 16450 can manage 57600 as I said they can.

Yes, OK, thru a null modem cable running under DOS.  So what for an
intended internet user?

 JH> So, I don't really consider myself as standing corrected -
 JH> - at least not yet.

 CA> Suit yourself. I took the time to find out for myself.

Not with Win9x, browser on the net, external 56K modem on an 8250 serial
port, you haven't!

Since maybe you and I are the only persons on the planet interested in
this right now, I think some real experiments are the only way out of
our lack of agreement.  I'm in process of arranging an external 56K
modem and a serial expansion card with 8250 UART to be sent to an
impartial volunteer "fair witness" tester.  This will take some weeks,
due to current circumstances of the volunteer tester.  One or both of us
will post here with the results of the testing.

- - -  JimH.

... Inquiring minds want to know. - Bubba
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.32