Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ccut!wnoc-tyo-news!astemgw!kuis!aegis!davidg
From: davidg%aegis.or.jp@kyoto-u.ac.jp (Dave McLane)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: AT I/O card with 16550, available
Message-ID: <0ZB0Z2w163w@aegis.or.jp>
Date: 10 Apr 91 21:56:08 GMT
References: <1991Apr9.145116.5205@jwt.UUCP>
Organization: Aegis Society
Lines: 17

john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes:

> In article <1991Apr7.073129.7583@limbic.ssdl.com> gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kl
> >Amen.  Stay away from the Western Digital version also...they don't
> >work properly either.
>
> Can you back this claim up with some facts?

And could you include the number of the Western Digitial version....

I had a board with UMB2C550 chips on it (are these the Western
Digitals?) and it wasn't recognized by the XU.EXE (which comes with
the X00 driver for DOS) as a 16550/16550A.  When I changed the
chips ot NS1655A FAS showed a marked decrease in percentage of the
CPU time being used to handle the ports.

--Dave