Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!jgreco From: jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) Newsgroups: comp.sys.cbm Subject: Re: Another info request for old CBM computers Message-ID: <600@csd4.milw.wisc.edu> Date: 27 Jan 89 15:00:38 GMT References: <1347.23DEB744@isishq.FIDONET.ORG> Sender: news@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Reply-To: jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Joe Greco) Organization: UW-Milwaukee Home for Out-of-date 8 bit Hackers Lines: 52 In comp.sys.cbm article <1347.23DEB744@isishq.FIDONET.ORG>, izot@f171.n221.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Geoffrey Welsh) wrote: ] I have no idea why you don't like 6809... it's like 6502's big brother ]and (what I like most about it) it's just as fast as 6502 (i.e. machine cyles ]per instruction, by which standard the 8086 and 68000 family look poor in ]comparison). It offers 16-bit accumulator, X and Y, system & user stacks (not ]limited to 256 bytes), direct page (relocatable zero page, emulated by the ]C128's 8502/MMU), 8-by-8 bit multiply, etc... 6809 isn't easily portable to the c64. Besides, I don't feel like trying to learn yet another processor. (And I have all my VITAL programming utilities on the 64, too!) ] > Well, I'd use 9600 "just on principle" (the faster the modem help ] > menus come up, the less inclined I am to reach for a manual). ] ] By the time you compare 4800 to 9600, you have to ask yourself (1) can the ]display routines really keep up to 9600? (2) How much are they slowed down by ]the 9600 interrupts/second as compared to the 4800 interrupt/second? My original HBBS display routines were timed at something like 1120cps. Come on, you can SEE the difference between 4800 and 9600. At 9600, while it may not be able to display AT that speed, it will at least be going as fast as it can. :-) ] > I have not seen your routines, unless you mean FASTERM, which does ] > manage 2400 but not anything faster. ] ] I managed C1 and XMODEM transfers (error-free) at 4800 bps using that code. ]A 2-MHz C128 port of the code runs a USRobotics HST at 9600. Didn't work for me. Of course that doesn't mean it's not so, it might just mean that my clock speed is a tad off. > > (besides, I still want to see Kermit run at 2400... or 9600... > > Kermit, like and all half-duplex protocols, profits less and less from each >succeding increase in baud rate. XMODEM, for instance, only achieves 400 >bytes/second transfer rate on an 11,600 bps data carrier. YMODEM improves that >to 700 bytes/sec by increasing block size from 128 bytes to 1K. Kermit's block >size is usually 92 bytes, meaning that its throughput would be even worse than >XMODEM's. I meant c64kermit2.2.... would like to have a VT100 emulator running at 2400. I keep forgetting and referring to it simply as "Kermit" (sorry). hehehehe -- jgreco@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Joe Greco at FidoNet 1:154/200 USnail: 9905 W Montana Ave PunterNet Node 30 or 31 West Allis, WI 53227-3329 "These aren't anybody's opinions." Voice: 414/321-6184 Data: 414/321-9287 (Happy Hacker's BBS)