Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!ucsd!qualcom.qualcomm.com!cancun.qualcomm.com!rdippold
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: 16550A UART, Needed?
Message-ID: <1991May22.000143.3599@qualcomm.com>
Date: 22 May 91 00:01:43 GMT
References: <1991May21.163229.6631@netcom.COM>
Sender: news@qualcomm.com
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: cancun.qualcomm.com

In article <1991May21.163229.6631@netcom.COM> noring@netcom.COM (Jon Noring) writes:
>I ran FIFO.COM on my 386-33 pc (Omnitel motherboard) and the program said
>that I didn't have a 16550A UART, rather that I had an 8250.
>
>The main question:  Is it really worthwhile replacing my current 8250 UART
>with a 16550A when I get a 9600+ modem, or are the gains minimal? (of course,
>I'll have to make sure that my communications software fully takes advantage
>of the 16550A UART).

If you are multi-tasking, yes.  I have a 386/33 as well, and find that the
16550 eliminates an irritating problem I have when I'm running at 14.4K
in which switching to/from the communications task's window can louse up
the transmission.  The program immediately catches it, but it's still
irritating.  The FIFO on the 16550 gives DesqView / Windows more time to
do its swap to screen.  In addition, the communications task does not load
down the system as much as it used to.

This only happened to me at 14.4K, usually, but I'd say if you are getting
a 9600+ you should get the fast UART.

-- 
Standard disclaimer applies, you legalistic hacks.     |     Ron Dippold