Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!uunet!shelby!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!lll-winken!bu-cs!mit-eddie!andante!ulysses!dptg!mtunb!jcm
From: jcm@mtunb.ATT.COM (John McMillan)
Newsgroups: unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: Terminal on tty000
Message-ID: <1714@mtunb.ATT.COM>
Date: 4 Dec 89 22:27:12 GMT
References: <105@spirit.UUCP> <584@limbic.UUCP>
Reply-To: jcm@mtunb.UUCP (John McMillan)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T ISL Middletown NJ USA
Lines: 18

In article <584@limbic.UUCP> gil@limbic.UUCP (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes:
>In article <105@spirit.UUCP> john@spirit.UUCP (John F. Godfrey) writes:
:
>> As with my Trailblazer, would the terminal be
>>better off on the expansion tty that I have left?  viz. tty002?
>
>I heard yes.  The internal (tty000) port code is less efficient (according
>to some inside information) than the code for the expansion ports.

	? Huh? Wha? Not that I know of.  Gosh... 'hope I'd know!
	Anyway, the solitary disadvantage of the tty000 is that
	it interrupts at SPL4 while the expansion ports interrupt
	at SPL5.  By the time that becomes significant, your
	barrel's over the falls anyway.  (Tty000 should be
	trivially MORE efficient than the expansion tty's for
	which a BOARD search must be made.)

john mcmillan -- att!mtunb!jcm