Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!ut-sally!utah-cs!utah-gr!stride!tahoe!unsvax!jimi!otto!rex
From: rex@otto.COM (Rex Jolliff)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm
Subject: Re: 1200 +
Message-ID: <503@otto.COM>
Date: Tue, 28-Jul-87 03:05:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: otto.503
Posted: Tue Jul 28 03:05:16 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 31-Jul-87 02:16:27 EDT
References: <3989@udenva.UUCP>
Reply-To: rex@otto.UUCP (Rex Jolliff)
Organization: Las Vegas Sun
Lines: 32

Summary:

Expires:

Sender:

Followup-To:

Distribution:

Keywords:


In article <3989@udenva.UUCP> slindahl@udenva.UUCP writes:
>My question is:  Can a Commodore 64 handle anything above 1200 baud?
>
>--
>Steve J. Lindahl

That depends on whether you can put up with an incredible amount of garbaged
characters or not.  Actually the serial port driver is supposed to be able to
handle up to 2400 baud, but it is VERY inaccurate at any thing over 600 baud.
This is because they decided that they would rather use a piece of software to
control the serial port than to add an inexpensive (~ $2.00) piece of hardware
to the design.  It seems that their main interest in designing the C64 was its
ability to play great games.  And, I think their design was an enormous success
in that respect.  If you got any flames, mail them to me... I guarantee I'll
reply. 8-)

Now my question: Considering the sotfware design, hardware design and the
intended use for the serial port, why would it cost more to put a UART into the
machine instead of what they actually did.

                                                            Rex.



-- 

Rex Jolliff  (rex@otto.UUCP, {akgua,ihnp4,mirror,sdcrdcf}!otto!rex)
The Sun Newspaper -            |Disclaimer:  The opinions and comments in
Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way
Newspaper                      | reflect the opinions of my employers.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What happened to our superior space program?