Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site usl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!whuxcc!lcuxlm!akgua!usl!elg
From: elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green)
Newsgroups: net.micro.cbm
Subject: Re: 2400 baud modems
Message-ID: <865@usl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Aug-86 00:48:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: usl.865
Posted: Tue Aug 12 00:48:57 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Aug-86 05:08:15 EDT
References: <2050@watmath.UUCP>
Reply-To: elg@usl.UUCP (Eric Lee Green)
Organization: USL, Lafayette, LA
Lines: 28
Summary: 

In article <2050@watmath.UUCP> grwalter@watmath.UUCP (Fred Walter) writes:
>Query: has anyone had any experience using a 2400 baud modem with a C64
>or a C128 ? Can either of these computers support 2400 baud, even in

2400 baud is impossible on a C-64, unless you totally chunk all Kernal
routines (in which case it would STILL be extremely unreliable, and
you would be limited to 40 columns because 80-column emulation is too
slow even for 1200 baud).

Commodore personel have stated that 2400 baud is possible on a C-128
while running in 80 column mode at 2Mhz. I am not qualified to judge
the truthfulness of this statement, since I do not have a 2400 baud
modem and have only had a C-128 for 3 weeks. It does seem rational,
though... processor twice as fast, baud rate twice as fast, and with
the 128's real 80 column screen, no problem emulating a "smart"
terminal.

Actually, what is needed is a hardware UART. I have diddled with
perhaps taking an Intel chip and hanging it off the user port, using
the timer as the bit clock, but haven't attempted it yet. A 6800/6500
family chip would be very difficult to hang off the user port, since
it would be a synchronous chip (needing a 1 Mhz. clock to operate and
expecting its operands within that clock).

-- 
-- Computing from the Bayous, --
      Eric Green {akgua,ut-sally}!usl!elg
         (Snail Mail P.O. Box 92191, Lafayette, LA 70509)