On (17 Jan 95) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote to All...

 > Right, it's running at 38400 baud at the moment, using a 14400 baud 
 > modem, and it doesn't lose characters in both Hardware -and- software 
 > flow control modes. In No Flow Control mode (testing only?), at 2400 baud 
 > it keeps up fine, until the screen scrolls, where it loses 1 out of every 
 > 30 characters sent...

Si which interupt mode is the UART set to, RxRDY or FiFoFULL?
I expect you've got a bit more CPU overhead in your ANSI emulation and the 
extra screen modes, but with my hand-optimised ZMP15 running under ProDos1.923
which emulates VT-52 and isn't optimised in terms of screen banking and a tiny
256byte Rx ring-buffer it copes without flow-control and screen scrolling at
almost 9600baud! 4800 baud and NO characters are lost even on long file
spooling... Of course 19.2k and 38.4k work fine WITH hardware flow-control...
That's using UART interupt on RxRDY and only getting one byte per interupt!
I'm going to re-write my ISR & ring-buffer read code to do Interupt on FiFoFULL
which will reduce the UART interupt overhead by 2/3rd's which should allow
continuos 9600baud without flow-control which means Class2 Fax reception will
be possible under OS RS232 support!

 > Nope, I'm not joking -- Fax may take a while (I really need a hard fax to 
 > test it with, either that or two fax modems... still, I've got *SOME* 
 > documents on it).

I think the most complex part of a Fax program will be the encoding and
decoding of the Fax file being transfered. The Transaction using Class2 is
reasonably simple ie you don't worry about CRC checking etc as Class2 handles
that for you! At least that's what the Class2 section of my modems Fax chapter
says;-)

I know where I can get hold of the author of the MS-DOS BG-FAX or the QL's
FAX program. Would you like me to see if they have any doc files that'll assist
you?


... Faster, Cheaper, More Efficient, Modems or Wives?
--
|Fidonet:  Johnathan Taylor 2:2501/307.9
|Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.

Reply via email to