| ??? 02/22/06 19:50 Read: times |
#110529 - can't have it both ways ... Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
PC's are limited to async comm's because the guys who thought it up didn't figure on high-volume comm's.
What in the world does that matter? If the PC designers were pure genius or "two french fries short of a happy meal" you would still have to communicate by the means provided. You keep harping on existing designs, fine, you are entitled to your opinion, but if not you, then the rest of the world, would still have to communicate by the means provided. From where I sit, however, it's too slow and inefficient to be practical. It works OK for a user-interface, a debug terminal, a printer, or something like that, but even internet communication gets away from that inefficient format as quickly as it can. Well, if you want to communicate on the internet and do not want a whole lot of development, you will go ethernet with an XPORT and gasp, that one you communicate serially with using gasp, standard baud rates. Oh btw, my current design goes 460k on RS485 yes, that is, indeed, "slow and inefficient" Erik If you communicate with "standard" equipment, then you are communicating with "existing designs," aren't you? The T3 backbone doesn't talk at 9600 baud, or any integral multiple of it. I does talk at an integral multiple of 64 kilobits, though. The typical stat-mux that you have to insert in order to get to a T1 rate is needed because of that, i.e. it translates and concentrates the data to the required 1.536 Mbit (24x64000)rate to which it adds the 8 kbits/sec of control to get to that 1.544 Mbps, which rate isn't integrally divisible by 300, 1200, or 9600. What would you conclude from that? What standard equipment do you use that talks at 460 Kbps? How does your PC async port figure into that? If you're talking in async protocol, it's still going to waste two bits out of every ten or three out of every eleven bits you use per character. That's not what I'd call efficient. RE |
