Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!att!holin!doc
From: doc@holin.ATT.COM (David Mundhenk)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: What is the difference between XT and AT serial ports
Summary: Mine has an 8250 also
Keywords: RS232, chips, AT, XT, I/O ports
Message-ID: <235@holin.ATT.COM>
Date: 21 Nov 88 17:22:52 GMT
References: <3078@dalcs.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T DSG Holmdel NJ USA
Lines: 26

In article <3078@dalcs.UUCP>, lane@dalcs.UUCP (John Wright/Dr. Pat Lane) writes:
> I've read that the serial port in the IBM PC and XT is based on the 8250
> chip while for the AT, a 16450 chip is used.  In my AT clone, I notice the
> serial board has an 8250 on it which seems to work just fine.  I'm wondering
> what the difference between these two chips is, what differences there
> typicallly are bewteen XT and AT serial ports (besides XT ports often being
> paired with battery powered clock/calendar circuits), and if there is any
> problem or disadvantage in having an 8250 based card in an AT clone.
> 
I wish I had been aware of the AT using the 16450 chip if it's supposed
to be better than the 8250. I recently bought a serial I/O card for my
AT clone that uses the 8250 - I didn't see any that used a 16450.
Anyway, I am using it with LapLink at 19,200 baud to transfer files,
and it works just fine. Maybe someone with a more rigorous use for the
serial port would be unhappy....


-Dave                "Credo quia absurdum"
------------------------------------------------------------------
   /^,             , ,  .  .   ,  ,             , ,          ,
  /  } _, , , . __/  | /| /   /| /|  , , __, __/ /_  _, __, /_
 /_./ (_l |/ / /_/   |/ |/.  / |/ | /_/ / / /_/ / / /_ / / /\

Disclaimer:
My opinions do not reflect those of anyone I work for or with, or
anyone who does not look like me.