🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8909180719.AA29678@postgres.Berkeley.EDU> Matt Dillon writes:
>	Now that I have NET: working w/ my parallel port network (raw
>    throughput of 28KBytes/sec), having a second Amiga has suddenly become
>    useful, much more useful than spending the $$ for an accelerator.
Perhaps; certainly a big round of applause are due you and Doug Walker.
This doesn't solve the memory problem on the 2nd machine; perhaps the VM
routines discussed by -- I forget his name -- in an article titled
something like "Exit with a bang!"?  (Aside: I never saw even a single
reply to that message.  Did everyone assume it was a hoax?  Was it old hat?
I was expecting a flurry of discussion.)

I'm very excited by the great PD/ShareWare work that is being done on
AmigaDOS -- from ARP, AREXX and ConMan to DNET, NET:, the parallel
network driver, and potentially virtual memory, maybe even memory
protection.  And hardware like LUCAS/FRANCES and the ECS hack for the
A1000.  Hopefully Commodore will see fit to license some of the software
parts.  AmigaDOS deserves it; new buyers deserve these features without
having to become experts on what's good and what isn't in PD software.

>	diskperf NET: to my A1000's RAM: drive yields 25 KBytes/sec
>	(4096 byte buffers).  Raw network throughput is 28 KBytes/sec.
Is that the theoretical limit on the parallel port?  I'd expect much
higher throughput.  The serial port can be driven up to 56Kbps or so,
right?  If (and I realize I'm making a big assumption here, but ...)
IF it takes about the same amount of effort to send a BYTE down the
parallel port as a BIT down the serial port, shouldn't the limit be
around 56Kb/sec?

Hmmm.  2:1.  Less of a difference than I'd thought at first.  I'm
probably just talking through my hat; ignore me... ;-}

Bela Lubkin     * *   filbo@gorn.santa-cruz.ca.us   CIS: 73047,1112
     @        * *     ...ucbvax!ucscc!gorn!filbo    ^^^  REALLY slow [months]
R Pentomino     *     Filbo @ Pyrzqxgl (408) 476-4633 & XBBS (408) 476-4945