Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!unmvax!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!mcdchg!richsun!nico
From: nico@richsun.UUCP (Kevin Nicodemus)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: 16450?
Message-ID: <319@richsun.UUCP>
Date: 11 May 89 20:49:31 GMT
References: <696@solaria.csun.edu>
Reply-To: nico@richsun.UUCP (Kevin Nicodemus)
Organization: RICH Inc. , Franklin Park,IL
Lines: 22

In article <696@solaria.csun.edu> ecphssrw@afws.csun.edu (Stephen Walton) writes:
  [description of replacing a 8250 with a 16450 for serial port speedup on
   a IBM PC/AT deleted]

   Yes, the National 16450 is compatable with the National 8250 (I believe that
the 16450 is faster because its optimized for 16-bit data transfers, or maybe
not.  I'm not sure).  But all of this is moot.  The Amiga does not use a 8250
for the serial port, it uses one of two identical custom chips.  These chips are
numbered 8520 which might be the cause of this confusion.

   I assumed that you were referring to the built-in serial port, not an add-on
card (of which I know nothing about).

                                               Kevin Nicodemus
Where the hell did my .sig file go?
Disclaimer:  Whether I'm right or wrong doesn't matter, because SOMEBODY will
             flame me either way.

I can't believe how stupid that disclaimer sounds.  I'm always amazed at how 
good Usenet is at making reasonably intelligent adults sound like fourteen
year olds dialing in from their parents' basement.  This whole paragraph is a
perfect example.