From: grichard@cis.ohio-state.edu (Golden Richard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps
Subject: Re: Commercial comm programs for OS/2
Date: 21 Jan 1993 15:28:10 -0500
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
NNTP-Posting-Host: swimming.cis.ohio-state.edu

In article <1jm5enINN6eo@shelley.u.washington.edu> rkimmel@stein.u.washington.edu (Robert Kimmel) writes:
>In article <1jk13oINN1v6@swimming.cis.ohio-state.edu> grichard@cis.ohio-state.edu (Golden Richard) writes:
>>In article <d9mikael.727538575@dtek.chalmers.se> d9mikael@dtek.chalmers.se (Mikael Wahlgren) writes:
>>>grichard@cis.ohio-state.edu (Golden Richard) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>>>>I do not have nor can I add a 16550 UART, because I use a Toshiba
>>>>3300SL and have a portable (external) modem.
    ^^^^^

	this is a notebook, with an integrated VLSI 16450 UART.

>>I do not want "everything" without paying for anything.  I do expect a
>>comm program to manage 9600 baud transfers w/o bringing a 386-class
>>machine to its knees.   When m2zmodem is in use, my system is basically
>>unusuable for ANY other task.  Under the default high priority setting
>>(for 9600 baud+ transfers) the word "basically" doesn't even apply.
>>TE/2 uses the same COM.SYS that m2zmodem uses and manages not to bring
>>my machine to a crawl.  If TE/2 didn't crash occasionally with COM1
>>not available messages and had better zmodem error recovery, we
>>wouldn't be having this discussion.  For the record, my machine has a
>>16450 UART.
>>
>>--Golden
>>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Golden Richard III             OSU Dept. of Computer and Information Science
>>grichard@cis.ohio-state.edu                                   (614) 292-0056
>
>If your machine has a 16450 UART, why don't you spend $10 to $15 dollars
>for a 16550 AFN?  Then you won't have those problems you are having.
> The 16550 AFN will fit into the socket where your 16450 is.  Any 
>multitasking enviroment needs a 16550 AFN to work well with high speed modems,
>that's just the way it is.  So either except it or quit complaining. 

It isn't a matter of price (see above).  And it's not true that a
16550 is *required*, since in most cases TE/2 does a pretty good job,
it's just that it's buggy.  I have every right to complain if software
just doesn't measure up.  I have difficulty believing that it's
*impossible* for a 386-class machine running an OS/2 comm program to
do 9600 baud transfers reliably w/o a 16550 when such a machine under
DOS can comfortably do 38400+ (even 115K using appropriate software) baud
transfers.  Sure, a 16550 UART is great; but I'm sick of programmers
insisting that "all that's necessary to make my program work
adequately is buy some more hardware".  The words lazy, incompetent,
or *beta* come to mind, but not "production quality". There's a
difference between complaints that mask impossible demands ("hey, why
can't my 8088-class machine run OS/2?")  and complaints address
someone's refusal or inability to create a decent software product
given adequate hardware.   Telling someone 10 years ago that a 5 MIP
machine wouldn't be able to handle 9600 baud serial communication
would probably have result in some strange looks.



--Golden
-- 
Golden Richard III             OSU Dept. of Computer and Information Science
grichard@cis.ohio-state.edu                                   (614) 292-0056
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.apps