RE: Print/price question - RE: TI-H: Why expander? Why compress? Us

[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

RE: Print/price question - RE: TI-H: Why expander? Why compress? Use a FDD!


well ive turboed my ti-92 as far as it will go im getting like 24-25 
mhz. i think its originaly at 10? or was it 5? 
i duno i was thinking about looking for a small dc fan to put on the 
procesor.

>From listown@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se Wed Jan 21 20:15:32 1998
>Received: (from majordom@localhost)
>	by towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se (8.8.8/8.8.7) id FAA19481
>	for ti-hardware-outgoing; Thu, 22 Jan 1998 05:13:00 +0100
>Message-ID: <01BD26C1.C4539EC0@dial164.bway.net>
>From: Christopher Kalos <raptorone@stuytech.com>
>To: "'ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org'" <ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org>
>Subject: RE: Print/price question - RE: TI-H: Why expander? Why 
compress? Use a FDD!
>Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 22:28:28 -0500
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="---- 
=_NextPart_000_01BD26C1.C46467A0"
>Sender: owner-ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
>Precedence: list
>Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
>Errors-To: ti-hardware-errors@lists.ticalc.org
>
>On that point, what can be done to improve the speed beyond turboing?  
a =
>redesigned lower noise link port?  There has to be a way to bump it up 
=
>in the TI itself.  Also, do you plan on porting the MBus routines to 
the =
>entire 8x line?
>Christopher Kalos
>raptorone@stuytech.com
>Executive Director/Administrator
>Virtual Technologies Developer's Group
>
>
>----------
>From: 	Osma Suominen[SMTP:ozone@clinet.fi]
>Sent: 	Wednesday, January 21, 1998 5:06 AM
>To: 	ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
>Subject: 	RE: Print/price question - RE: TI-H: Why expander? Why =
>compress? Use a FDD!
>
>
>On Tue, 20 Jan 1998, Grant Stockly wrote:
>
>>> they can make their own chips, which can also become expensive.  
Your
>main
>>> worry is not with hackers, but maybe the MBus, which has already =
>shown
>>> promise in its chat program.
>>=20
>> But, MBus can only handle 1.4k per sec wiht 2 calcs, 700b with 4, I =
>have
>> proven rates of 479k per sec with a computer parallel port.  THat is 
=
>with
>> all ports sending and receiving.  The CalcNet bus can handle =
>612,000bps
>> before it generates errors, and I have it regulated to 500k per 
sec...
>
>Just in case someone has misunderstood...
>
>MBus can handle 1.4k/sec with, say, 8 calcs. It could even handle =
>10k/sec
>with 8 calcs, but the calcs themselves are too slow to handle those
>speeds. The maximum speed doesn't drop as more calcs are added to the
>system, it only drops when there are several simultaneous transmissions 
=
>on
>the bus. At any given time, the bus handles just one transmission. =
>Several
>transmissions are interlaced, so the total troughput is the same, but =
>each
>transmission is slowed down because it only gets its own share of the
>total bus bandwidth.
>
>If PC's would be connected to the MBus (I've thought about writing a
>driver in C for the parallel link), higher speeds could be used. The
>limiting factor is currently always the receiving calculator, TI-85's =
>can
>send at about 3kBytes/sec but receive at only about 1.3 kBytes/sec. 
(The
>values depend on battery state and lots of other variables. Each TI is
>slightly different, so I try to quote "safe" values with my 
experience.)
>
>-Ozone
>
>*** Osma Suominen *** ozone@clinet.fi *** http://www.clinet.fi/~ozone =
>***
>
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com