SPONSORED LINKS
> > > > Is there anyone on this list who uses the external serial port > > >and connects a v.32bis modem to it? I realize lots of you have PCMCIA > > >modems, but I'm curious as to any who just have a plain 'ol external. > > > > > > I recently got a new USR Courier "V.Everything" (28.8K) modem > > >for my desktop (where most all of my modeming is done) and since I have > > >a "spare" modem in the form of a Supra V.32bis FaxModem, I decided to try > > >running it from my ThinkPad. > > > > > > I runs fine when I lock it down at about 9600 baud, but at 14.4K > > >Baud, I have some problems. Namely, it seems to scramble an occasional > > >character when I'm in this EMACS editor, but more seriously, prevents > > >any meaningful file transfer at 14.4K baud (though 9600 works okay). It > > >produces a number of CRC errors. > > > If someone has not already suggested it, remove FUELDOS.EXE > > it fiddles with the serial port for some unknown reason. > > I had the same problem.. removedit and I wa fine! > > > > -James > > It was suggested by one person (thanks again, by the way), but it > did not work. I think, under Windows at least, I'm doomed to 9600 baud > unless a 16550 UART magically appears--I'm *really* ticked that IBM would > scrimp on an important item like that (costs a whopping $5 more at the most) > on such an otherwise wonderful machine. I guess they figured everyone would > use PCMCIA modems and not externals. > > Which begs the question, oh you PCMCIA gurus: Do you ever have > any trouble using your 14.4K PCMCIA modems under windows? Is the "serial" > port in the PCMCIA slot fast enough to keep up with things? I would like > to know the answer to these things before I sink $ into one someday--and > do you think PCMCIA would still work fine with a 28.8K modem? > > Now maybe one can do 14.4K on an external serial under DOS, but I > prefer Windows (or as Sean suggested--use OS/2! Damn you Sean--you got me > there!). > Two things -- first, make sure you have the latest verion of FUELDOS, I understand that the newer verions do not adversely affect serial communicaitons. Second, the reason that almost all manufacturers, particularly of notebooks, use a 16450, is because that what's in Intel's standard support chipset. Using a 16550 would mean either somehow disbalg that UART, or using another support chipset -- so much for compatibility. IBM had a 16550 on the 700/720 because those ran on an IBM processor with IBM suport circuitry. -- Adam Lee Wilkinson * Just remember, no matter where you go, adam@tiamat.umd.umich.edu * there you are! Compuserve: 75470,71 * - Buckaroo Bonzai