Actually, DMC and DQ11 both had V35 options and both would hit 1.5
(1.3 actual due to protocol overhead. The DP8/e supported v.35 also,
but I don't recall how fast I could get that to go. I had bell 301 and
303 modems in the lab in the mill, running back to back. THere are
some arcane bits in the
> On Jan 27, 2021, at 4:05 AM, Mattis Lind wrote:
>
>
>
> Den tis 26 jan. 2021 kl 22:39 skrev Paul Koning :
>
> ...
>> I looked a bit at that Weact thing but got lost in the fulminating about
>> "pirated" copies. Seriously? Open source designs are meant to be copied;
>> "pirated" is a
Den tis 26 jan. 2021 kl 22:39 skrev Paul Koning :
>
>
> > On Jan 26, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Mattis Lind wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hello Paul,
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> The framing is different but no harder, I think. And I was thinking of
> leaving the protocol state machine to the host, so the microcontroller
> On Jan 26, 2021, at 2:35 PM, Mattis Lind wrote:
>
>
> Hello Paul,
>
> ...
>
>> The framing is different but no harder, I think. And I was thinking of
>> leaving the protocol state machine to the host, so the microcontroller would
>> only do framing -- deliver completed good frames
Hello Paul,
>
> Mattis, thanks! That's an implementation along the lines I was thinking.
> If yours can get close to 1 Mb/s, chances are one could get all the way
> there with the Arduino Itsy Bitsy M4, that's a 120 MHz ARM chip (Cortex
> M4). It has USB built-in. I'll study your code; that
> On Jan 26, 2021, at 1:24 PM, Peter Coghlan via cctalk
> wrote:
>
> I wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The other option would be synchronous links, which would enable connections
>>> to DMC11 or the like at speeds up to 1 Mb/s. But synchronous comm devices
>>> that connect to modern computers aren't so
I wrote:
>
>>
>> The other option would be synchronous links, which would enable connections
>> to DMC11 or the like at speeds up to 1 Mb/s. But synchronous comm devices
>> that connect to modern computers aren't so easy to find, though I have seen
>> a few.
>>
>
> Not what would be called
>
> The other option would be synchronous links, which would enable connections
> to DMC11 or the like at speeds up to 1 Mb/s. But synchronous comm devices
> that connect to modern computers aren't so easy to find, though I have seen
> a few.
>
Not what would be called modern these days but I
rom: "Paul Koning"
> To: "hecnet" , cctalk@classiccmp.org
> Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 8:46:21 PM
> Subject: [HECnet] DDCMP sync?
> In playing with DECnet I built a DDCMP implementation which deals with a byte
> stream, normally from a UART. So that works n
I did a thing called SyncDongle.(
https://github.com/MattisLind/alfaskop_emu/tree/master/hardware/SyncDongle)
Essentially a BluePill with some level converters. It is using the SPI port
for sync communication.
Then I developed a BSC implementation and a HDLC implementation to use on
the
Usually, we referred to the synchronous chip as a USynrt chip, a play on UART,
DMC can run 1.544 Mb/s, or full T1. DUP or DU11 were good to upto 56K.
Bisync, ADCCP, HDLC, DDCMP, BDLC were all options back in 77 but...
Yes, they are slow. I had a hard time trying to explain th the
Signetics design
In playing with DECnet I built a DDCMP implementation which deals with a byte
stream, normally from a UART. So that works nicely with async link DDCMP as
found in RSX and several other operating systems. But the speed is limited.
The other option would be synchronous links, which would enable
12 matches
Mail list logo
