Re: TI-H: New topic, since the list has been dead.

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: New topic, since the list has been dead.
From: Grant Stockly <gussie@stockly.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 1999 11:17:37 -0800
In-Reply-To: <37C2B9CC.851F9A74@baladyne.com>
References: <001601bee9f3$8b08ff60$4847a8c0@pc-de-javier> <000d01beea21$56e7ba40$9f99fea9@wwnet.net> <002501beea8d$3c451040$7c89fea9@bistromath> <001501beeab2$d6a0e720$9f99fea9@wwnet.net> <37BD68FB.F35ACD47@baladyne.com> <v04020a01b3e7d3ff1c3f@[24.237.5.4]>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org


>The speed is not defined.

There is a minimum.

>It must be within a certian range, but it is clocked
>with a seperate line.  Why do you say, "They both go at 9600 serial" ??  Have
>you read the spec?

Yes.

>You may have interfaced one, but you aren't complaint with
>the spec unless you use the clock line to read the data.

All of them must be able to do 9600.

>You can't base it on a
>set bps rating.

If the port can't go at 9600, then it ain't compliant.  I'm not talking
about the keyboard or mouse, I'm talking about the computer controller.

References:

RE: TI-H: PIC's and TI-89's

From: "Javier" <grijalba@cvtci.com.ar>

TI-H: New topic, since the list has been dead.

From: "jeff dezur" <jeffd@wwnet.net>

Re: TI-H: New topic, since the list has been dead.

From: "Nick" <zaphod@gis.net>

Re: TI-H: New topic, since the list has been dead.

From: "jeff dezur" <jeffd@wwnet.net>

Re: TI-H: New topic, since the list has been dead.

From: Adam Davis <adavis@baladyne.com>

Re: TI-H: New topic, since the list has been dead.

From: Grant Stockly <gussie@stockly.com>

Re: TI-H: New topic, since the list has been dead.

From: Adam Davis <adavis@baladyne.com>