Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!texbell!texsun!convex!swarren
From: swarren@convex.com (Steve Warren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: A Cost Effective MULTI-SERIAL Device Proposition
Keywords: Multi-Serial Input Ouput Hardware Options Expansion
Message-ID: <5194@convex.convex.com>
Date: 6 Feb 90 17:14:44 GMT
References: <76649@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <15996@well.UUCP>
Sender: news@convex.com
Distribution: usa, world
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX
Lines: 40

In article <15996@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes:
>sutton@cherokee.cis.ohio-state.edu (roy a sutton) writes:


>>   What I re-propose is that a serial device driver be  implemented for the
>>   software configurable use with either of the existing joystick ports.
                                [...]
>I've used some of those 8-bit machines with this scheme implemented.
>It worked poorly enough for them that I found it unusable.  For the Amiga,
>it's just plain dumb.

Oh, come on, it's not *that* bad.  There are ways to get around all the
objections except the character-dropping/multitasking problem.  Granted,
that is a serious problem, but there *are* people who would see this as
a reasonable trade-off to save hundreds of dollars.

I wouldn't want CBM to support such a cludge ;^).  But then how about some
of the other cludges that people are using that CBM doesn't support.  Are
they dumb too?  How about Matt Dillon's parallel-port DNET implementation?
Does that filesystem ever drop characters under intense multitasking?
(I'm asking - I don't know).  I know it's a lot slower than the local
file system, and a lot slower than the "legitimate" solution (ethernet).
But it works and people apparently get good use out of it.

In fact I'm not positive but it seems like there was power passed out
through the joy-stick port.  There are now RS232 chips that generate
all the required voltages from +5 volts.  And it would be possible to
build the adapter to pass-through the joystick lines under program
control.  The joystick port would then only be unuseable when data
is not currently being transmitted.  If the user is willing to accept
this restriction (as well as limiting compute-intensive work while
using the extra port), then I don't see it as dumb at all.  It's a
cludge, but if it is useful and well-thought-out then I would consider
it pretty clever, even if I personally didn't have a use for it.

Cheers,
--
--Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
	  {uunet,sun}!convex!swarren; swarren@convex.COM