ct 2012 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
Hi
Again, I'd say it's the lowest common denominator. Synchronous comm using
RS-232 levels on a DB-25 came before asynchronous comm. It's long dead.
Being first isn't *always* best. Same could be said of
ailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
>Behalf Of David
>Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:54 AM
>To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
>Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
>
>What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a
Commodore computers in the longago dimdark past serialized the GPIB.
They started out with the GPIB as the disk drive and printer interface
from the get-go. I used a Commodore as a cheap controller when Hp GPIB
controllers cost a small fortune.
Don
David
> What aspects of USB would HP have used?
levels though.
Bob
-Original Message-
From: time-nuts-boun...@febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-boun...@febo.com] On
Behalf Of Michael Tharp
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 11:55 AM
To: time-nuts@febo.com
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
On 10/10/2012 11:49 AM, Bob C
On 10/10/2012 11:49 AM, Bob Camp wrote:
No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common
denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once
the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about
every chip set in the universe. I s
Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc
What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB
OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an
Ah well, I missed it but only because I have seen other people make
the same suggestion seriously in the recent past.
Where is my box of 2102 DRAMs? I left it around here somewhere.
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 11:15:32 -0400, paul swed
wrote:
>David it was humor
>Regards
>
>On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:
David it was humor
Regards
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:53 AM, David wrote:
> What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB
> OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
> asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet
> controller an
What aspects of USB would HP have used? Just the complexity of a USB
OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
asynchronous serial UART. An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet
controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards
initially.
What they did come
You know there is one other aspect of this question from Corby. How do I
say this. Age. If you are using the old basics then things like the latest
basic by different names are quite convoluted and distracting. They are
designed for mobile phone apps. You know those crazy modern apps that sell.
We
Murray we offered up the same thing for pretty much the same reasons.
Good to know I am in fine company. Hmmm Ham + free??? Any link?
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:05 AM, Murray Greenman wrote:
> Corby,
> Power Basic certainly does the job. However, there's a fairly big learning
>
Corby,
Power Basic certainly does the job. However, there's a fairly big learning
curve. I use Just Basic, which is a FREE cut-down version of Liberty Basic.
While there are a few limitations, and some things you need to do aren't
entirely intuitive, it works very well and the serial comms supp
12 matches
Mail list logo
