bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (03/28/91)
AT I/O cards with acceptable UARTS are very hard to find, but just maybe there is one at an affordable price. The EVEREX 'Magic I/O card', their # EVO-00-170-A1 sadly has a 16450 chip, and that is what most distributors and hence dealers are stocking. There IS another model available from EVEREX that has a 16550 that is really the same card, different UART. It is the # EVO-00-170-A3. That is NOT a National chip in there but a Mylex (sp?) (MX with a slashed X logo), and it is NOT in a socket, but is just soldered down (will they ever learn). Ultimately the expansion kit to populate the socketed second port might be available with a GOOD uart, but for now it has a cheap one. If anyone knows a distributor or dealer that stocks these please mail me. If you know any PROVEABLE reason that THAT 16550 they are using fails where the National one doesn't, I want to know, and I will call the product manager or mail you his name and number if you prefer. He is convinced it is ok. I would rather pay a tad more for the National chip.
root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) (03/30/91)
Barton F. Bruce (bruce@camb.com ) wrote: >The EVEREX 'Magic I/O card', their # EVO-00-170-A1 sadly >has a 16450 chip, and that is what most distributors and >hence dealers are stocking. There IS another model >available from EVEREX that has a 16550 that is really the >same card, different UART. It is the # EVO-00-170-A3. That >is NOT a National chip in there but a Mylex (sp?) (MX with >a slashed X logo), [...] >If you know any PROVEABLE reason that THAT 16550 they are >using fails where the National one doesn't, I want to know, >and I will call the product manager or mail you his name >and number if you prefer. He is convinced it is ok. YOU DON'T WANT THAT CHIP! Recently I ordered some NS16550AFNs from a nearby distributor and, after a significant delay, they said that National parts were not available but that these MX chips were. The salescritter assured me that they were 100% compatible so, after extracting a promise of full credit towards National chips if I was not satisfied, I ordered some. The chip was a disaster. I've used both -AN and -AFN chips with no troubles before, but these MX chips were impossible to get along with. They didn't lose characters, I'll give them that much credit... but it appeared (I stress the word "appeared", because I didn't hang on to the chips long enough to do a detailed analysis of them) as if the MX 16550 chips simply failed to generate interrupt requests every now and then, effectively locking up the serial port. I was worse off with the MX chip - which locked up at any time - than with a regular 16450 or 8250, which only lost characters while I was multitasking heavily on my machine (and would be able to do something if a nonrecoverable error cropped up, not that it ever did) Immediately I set about returning the MX chips. Unfortunately, the person who made me the promise seemed to be perpetually 'out' for nearly a week, after which I learned that he was no longer with the company. A short chat with a techie at that company revealed that many customers had complained about the MX chip. I bought NS16550AFNs from another source and plugged them in where the MX had been. No problems. At all. When buying 16550s, DON'T SETTLE FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN GENUINE NATIONAL PARTS. -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553 The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. - me
gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (04/07/91)
In article <7127.27F41B8C@zswamp.fidonet.org> root@zswamp.fidonet.org (Geoffrey Welsh) writes: > YOU DON'T WANT THAT CHIP! [...] > I bought NS16550AFNs from another source and plugged them in where the MX >had been. No problems. At all. > When buying 16550s, DON'T SETTLE FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN GENUINE NATIONAL >PARTS. Amen. Stay away from the Western Digital version also...they don't work properly either. -- Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@limbic.ssdl.com ...!ames!limbic!gil Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS) Houston, Texas "No one is listening until you make a mistake" - Murphy
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/09/91)
In article <1991Apr7.073129.7583@limbic.ssdl.com> gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes: >Amen. Stay away from the Western Digital version also...they don't >work properly either. Can you back this claim up with some facts? -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
davidg%aegis.or.jp@kyoto-u.ac.jp (Dave McLane) (04/11/91)
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: > In article <1991Apr7.073129.7583@limbic.ssdl.com> gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kl > >Amen. Stay away from the Western Digital version also...they don't > >work properly either. > > Can you back this claim up with some facts? And could you include the number of the Western Digitial version.... I had a board with UMB2C550 chips on it (are these the Western Digitals?) and it wasn't recognized by the XU.EXE (which comes with the X00 driver for DOS) as a 16550/16550A. When I changed the chips ot NS1655A FAS showed a marked decrease in percentage of the CPU time being used to handle the ports. --Dave
bruce@camb.com (Barton F. Bruce) (04/12/91)
In article <1991Apr7.073129.7583@limbic.ssdl.com>, gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes: > > Amen. Stay away from the Western Digital version also...they don't > work properly either. The WD chip is what MultiTech is stuffing in their v.42bis cards. Howmany mad customers does it take to make them listen?
gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) (04/15/91)
>john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: [in someone else's article] >>>Amen. Stay away from the Western Digital version also...they don't >>>work properly either. >> >> Can you back this claim up with some facts? > >And could you include the number of the Western Digitial version.... Sorry I didn't see your article, I've been away from the newsgroup for a while. I used FAS (I believe, at the time, it was 2.06) with NS16550s using Steve Nuchia's 4-port card on a 386/25 running Interactive UNIX. The board worked flawlessly with the National parts. When swapped out with WD16550s, I noticed failed connections. On an attached terminal, it appeared that parts of text from previous lines were re-appearing in text of later lines. It appeared to be a problem with the way the FIFOs were handled, but being that we left them in long enough to find they didn't work, nothing else could be concluded. Replacing the National parts caused the board to work fine again. At the time we (Judy Scheltema) and I did the experiment, I believe we also tried it on a regular serial card we socketed and swapped-in the WD16550s. This board failed also. Here's the full chip-front from the WD 16550s that we used: (C)WDC'88 WD16C550-PL 00-02 8913 002367846592 I'd be very happy to entertain comments as to what would make this chip work, as I have a few of them in my possession that were used to make this evaluation. I've been saving them in case someone came up with the reason why they didn't work. However, the common consensus is that they DON'T work, and so I'm inclined (having experienced the same results) to stay clear of them. Hope this is enough of an explanation for y'all. Gil. -- Gil Kloepfer, Jr. gil@limbic.ssdl.com ...!ames!limbic!gil Southwest Systems Development Labs (Div of ICUS) Houston, Texas "No one is listening until you make a mistake" - Murphy
john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) (04/17/91)
In article <1991Apr14.215409.16152@limbic.ssdl.com> gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes: >The board worked flawlessly with the National parts. When swapped >out with WD16550s, I noticed failed connections. On an attached >terminal, it appeared that parts of text from previous lines were >re-appearing in text of later lines. It certainly sounds like the WD parts were at fault. Here are my experiences with them: I've got a DigiBoard DigiCHANNEL PC/4 (dumb four port) with an NS chip on one port connected to a TB+ at 19200 bps, and a WD chip on another port connected to a Wyse terminal at 38400 bps, with the other two (unused) ports having WD chips. This is running under ESIX. The modem has never exhibited any problems. I've seen two problems with the terminal. First, when running emacs, if a cursor key is held down, emacs will pop up a "Command:" prompt every 10-15 seconds. So, somehow, emacs was seeing either an ESC-x or an ('x' | 0x80) when being sent one of ^K, ^L, ^H, or ^J at high speed. Second, it was not possible to exit from WordPerfect 4.2 (UNIX version). After sending the exit command, you would be left with a hung terminal, and an unkillable shell attached to it. These problems were experienced with the ESIX-supplied serial drivers. Now, since I had an NS-equipped port on my serial board, it was a simple matter of switching cables to see if the WD chips were at fault. They weren't. Both problems persisted. So then FAS 2.07 came along. I installed it, and the problems remained. And now I had random hung processes cropping up, so I got rid of FAS. The author then announced problems with 2.07 which could cause hung processes. When FAS 2.08 came out, I thought I'd give it another try, as the hung process bug was supposed to be fixed. Lo and behold, the hung processes bug was fixed, and so were my other two problems. WordPerfect and emacs now work perfectly. I don't know what the moral of this story is, but I would have to speculate that both the ESIX and FAS 2.07 asy drivers are buggy, and that whatever might be wrong with WD 16550 chips, my usage of them doesn't bring its problems out. -- John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john)
root@zswamp.uucp (Geoffrey Welsh) (04/18/91)
In a letter to All, John Temples (john@jwt.UUCP ) wrote: >I don't know what the moral of this story is, but I would >have to >speculate that both the ESIX and FAS 2.07 asy drivers are >buggy, and >that whatever might be wrong with WD 16550 chips, my usage >of them >doesn't bring its problems out. As I understand it, the WD 16550s only exhibit problems at low bit rates (2400 bps and below); you may not encounter the problems. I'd be interested in hearing from people using the MX 16550 in both buffered and unbuffered mode. -- UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553 The mile is traversed not by a single leap, but by a procession of coherent steps; those who insist on making the trip in a single element will be failing long after you and I have discovered new worlds. -- me
tech@mich-ns.UUCP (Mich. Network Sys. TECH SUPPORT) (04/25/91)
In article <1991Apr17.010953.10578@jwt.UUCP> john@jwt.UUCP (John Temples) writes: "In article <1991Apr14.215409.16152@limbic.ssdl.com> gil@limbic.ssdl.com (Gil Kloepfer Jr.) writes: "It certainly sounds like the WD parts were at fault. Here are my "experiences with them: " "I've got a DigiBoard DigiCHANNEL PC/4 (dumb four port) with an NS chip "on one port connected to a TB+ at 19200 bps, and a WD chip on another "port connected to a Wyse terminal at 38400 bps, with the other two (unused) "ports having WD chips. This is running under ESIX. " "The modem has never exhibited any problems. I've seen two problems "with the terminal. First, when running emacs, if a cursor key is held "down, emacs will pop up a "Command:" prompt every 10-15 seconds. So, "somehow, emacs was seeing either an ESC-x or an ('x' | 0x80) when being "sent one of ^K, ^L, ^H, or ^J at high speed. Second, it was not "possible to exit from WordPerfect 4.2 (UNIX version). After sending "the exit command, you would be left with a hung terminal, and an "unkillable shell attached to it. " "These problems were experienced with the ESIX-supplied serial drivers. "Now, since I had an NS-equipped port on my serial board, it was a "simple matter of switching cables to see if the WD chips were at fault. "They weren't. Both problems persisted. " "So then FAS 2.07 came along. I installed it, and the problems "remained. And now I had random hung processes cropping up, so I got "rid of FAS. The author then announced problems with 2.07 which could "cause hung processes. " "When FAS 2.08 came out, I thought I'd give it another try, as the hung "process bug was supposed to be fixed. Lo and behold, the hung "processes bug was fixed, and so were my other two problems. "WordPerfect and emacs now work perfectly. " "I don't know what the moral of this story is, but I would have to "speculate that both the ESIX and FAS 2.07 asy drivers are buggy, and "that whatever might be wrong with WD 16550 chips, my usage of them "doesn't bring its problems out. "-- "John W. Temples -- john@jwt.UUCP (uunet!jwt!john) No matter how good you think 16550's are, when you use a DTE speed of 38.4kbps or above, you can end up with problems. Best bet is to get an intelligent board like the PC/4e, which is only $528. Its worth the extra $150 to alleviate the headaches. *************************************************************************** Michigan Network Systems Technical Support Division 1-800-736-5984 BBS: +1 313 343 0800 We sell: TELEBIT DIGIBOARD WESTERN DIGITAL 3COM SCO INTERACTIVE MICROPOLIS ADAPTEC