[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AT&T KIT modem -- I dropped itRe: AT&T KIT modem -- I dropped it
- To: tp750@CS.UTK.EDU
- To: tp750@CS.UTK.EDU
- Subject: Re: AT&T KIT modem -- I dropped it
- Subject: Re: AT&T KIT modem -- I dropped it
- From: "John H. Kim" <jokim@jarthur.cs.hmc.edu>
- From: "Andrew A. Houghton" <ah0i+@andrew.cmu.edu>
- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 94 14:05:13 PST
- Date: Sun, 6 Mar 1994 17:20:50 -0500 (EST)
- In-Reply-To: <199403062053.AA09369@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu>; from "Sean Chou" at Mar 6, 94 2:53 pm
- In-Reply-To: <199403062205.RAA00178@CS.UTK.EDU>
- References: <199403062205.RAA00178@CS.UTK.EDU>
Well, for what it's worth, I have an Intel 14.4/14.4 PCMCIA modem.
Works fine, so far. I haven't really pushed it too much, though.
Lately I've not been travelling, and my desktop machine is leaps
& bounds better than my TP.
I'm using Intel's drivers. They're made by SystemSoft, and they were
much much better than the 1st set of IBM's drivers. Haven't tried
EasyPlay yet. Actually, with everything loaded, using DOS 6.2, I've
got around 560K of mem left. Not terrific (we're so spoiled, in these
days of decent memory managers -- I remember being satisfied with 490)
but not bad, either, as I haven't had to use multi-boot or tweak
anything by hand.
I forget if this was a topic on the mailing list or the PCMCIA
board... it was pointed out by someone that all this talk about 16550
or 16450 on the PCMCIA cards is interesting, but needs to be qualified
-- it's all emulation, and he was wondering whether the 16550
emulation really made a difference over 16450 emulation, since it's
not really hardware but software based.
But, of course, it could be that I'm wrong.
- Andrew