isingh@watmath.UUCP (12/04/87)
I am in need of a couple of things. First I phoned up Radio Scrap and they said they no longer have any Deluxe RS232 Packs. This is what I need to run a BBS at 300/1200 baud right? Well I also need a good bbs program. I have COCO 3 128k fd drives (2 of them) multi pack cm8 monitor etc.... I would like to start a bbs, but I am not sure as to where to find the programs and rs232 pack. I would be interested in hearig from anyone who know about such things. I have run bbs's before on other systems ad I would like to do so on my coco. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Ivan
EWTILENI@pucc.UUCP (12/05/87)
> I have COCO 3 128k That says it all right there. You DO NOT need an RS-232 Pak, then. The CoCo 3 can EASILY run 1200 baud out of the bitbanger port on the back of the computer, using halfway decent software, and if you have a well written program, it can do 2400 baud full duplex WITHOUT using the RS232 Program pak. Now... if you want to talk at 9600 baud, that's a different story... - ERIC - * Another proud CoCo 3 user * ______________ | | BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture | CompuServe: 70346,16 | MCI Mail and/or Delphi: TILENIUS |______________| PHONE :609-734-0092 | UUCP:{rutgers,cbosgd,cmcl2}!psuvax1!pucc.BITNET!ewtileni
pete@wlbr.UUCP (12/07/87)
In article <3986@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >> I have COCO 3 128k > >That says it all right there. You DO NOT need an RS-232 Pak, then. > >The CoCo 3 can EASILY run 1200 baud out of the bitbanger port on the back >of the computer, using halfway decent software, and if you have a well >written program, it can do 2400 baud full duplex WITHOUT using the RS232 >Program pak. > >BITNET:ewtileni@pucc | ARPA:ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU | ColorVenture | Wrong. Unless you wish to program the interval timer and poll the bit banger (highly unsatisfactory, unless you are single-tasking) at the designated intervals, it doesn't work worth a hoot. Reason: the idiotic engineers set up the interrupt generation logic on the receive data line so that an interrupt is kicked off on the *rising* edge. This is directly opposite of the way a serial (asynch) character is normally signalled.. that is, with a start bit (low - falling edge). Now, if you want to clip that inverter out of the circuit and spend some time rewriting SIO *then* serial port operations out of the bit banger could be satisfactory, but will still be more cpu-expensive than the RS-232 pak, or equivalent. -- Pete Lyall (OS9 Users Group V.P.) Eaton Corporation (818)-706-5693 Compuserve: 76703,4230 (OS9 Sysop) OS9 (home): (805)-985-0632 (24hr./1200 baud) Usenet: {trwrb,scgvaxd,ihnp4,voder,vortex}!wlbr!pete or pete@wlbr.eaton.com
koonce@wheatena (tim koonce) (12/08/87)
In article <1153@wlbr.EATON.COM> pete@wlbr.UUCP (0000-Pete Lyall) writes: >In article <3986@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >>The CoCo 3 can EASILY run 1200 baud out of the bitbanger port on the back >>of the computer > >Wrong. Unless you wish to program the interval timer and poll the bit... >-- >Pete Lyall (OS9 Users Group V.P.) Here we have an excellent example of OS9 snobbery. <grin> You're right, but only under OS9. Under RSDOS, things work differently. In fact, programming the interval timer and polling the bitbanger is pretty easy, and doesn't use up such enormous amounts of time as you might think, even at 2400 baud, if the routines are carefully written. I've done it, and it works. As a round guess, I think you could probably get up to 4800 baud and still have about 50% of the processor time available for foreground stuff, under RSDOS. Clearly, this won't work well under OS9 because of the overhead time in servicing interrupts under OS9. In fact, under OS9, it makes sense to off-load the processor as much as possible, to allow time for multitasking. But if you're single-tasking under RSDOS, and you have the processor time, it makes a lot of sense to use it, if it can cut down on hardware costs. Of course, if you're running a BBS which is probably written in BASIC, (which I beleive was the original question), then you probably have enough time problems already, and the RS232pak becomes necessary again. (Plus, I abhor switching cables between the modem and printer! :-) Tim Koonce +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |ARPA: koonce@bosco.berkeley.edu | | |Delphi: TIMKOONCE CIS:72276,1135 | | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
pete@wlbr.EATON.COM (Pete Lyall) (12/12/87)
In article <1455@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> koonce@bosco.edu (tim koonce) writes: >In article <1153@wlbr.EATON.COM> pete@wlbr.UUCP (0000-Pete Lyall) writes: >>In article <3986@pucc.Princeton.EDU> EWTILENI@pucc.Princeton.EDU writes: >>>The CoCo 3 can EASILY run 1200 baud out of the bitbanger port on the back >>>of the computer >> >>Wrong. Unless you wish to program the interval timer and poll the bit... >>-- >>Pete Lyall (OS9 Users Group V.P.) > >Here we have an excellent example of OS9 snobbery. <grin> > >You're right, but only under OS9. Under RSDOS, things work >differently. In fact, programming the interval timer and polling the >bitbanger is pretty easy, and doesn't use up such enormous amounts of >time as you might think, even at 2400 baud, if the routines are >carefully written. I've done it, and it works. Guilty as charged..<grin right back>. I certainly consider the OS9 environment to be an order of magnitude more powerful than RS-DOS. And regarding RS-DOS and serial drivers, I'm *painfully* aware of the intricacies and the pitfalls.. back in the 'dark days' before OS9 was widely commercially available, I spent over a year developing the machine language driver and underlayer for the COLORAMA BBS system (the BASIC was written by Peter Banz of Ceratec in Austin, TX - all BASIC flames to him ;^}). As an aside, it was primarily developed under FLEX (on a COCO w/ a VT-100). Back to present time.. I believe the interrupt logic to signal the arrival of a start bit is still hosed up - detects and triggers on the rising edge of the bit window.. should detect on falling. If that were the case, then I'd agree - you wouldn't have to babysit the port waiting for start bit arrival. Obvious solution is to short the CD line to the Rxd line and use the carrier detect interrupt instead. -- Pete Lyall (OS9 Users Group V.P.) Eaton Corporation (818)-706-5693 Compuserve: 76703,4230 (OS9 Sysop) OS9 (home): (805)-985-0632 (24hr./1200 baud) Internet: pete@wlbr.eaton.com UUCP: {ihnp4,scgvax,jplgodo,voder}!wlbr!pete