🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug11.104012.1134@colorado.edu> drew@ophelia.cs.colorado.edu (Drew Eckhardt) writes:
>
>If you are talking about microchannel machines,you are correct.  However, 
>if you are talking about "normal" XT and ISA bus PC's, you have no understanding
>of the bus, and should stop spreading lies.

Spreading lies? Hmm... Is it a lie to report what I have seen with my
own eyes? Perhaps I was hallucinating when I saw two of my COM ports, one
on the motherboard and one on a separate add-in card, share an IRQ level.

>THERE IS A HARDWARE PROBLEM THAT PREVENTS THE SHARING OF INTERRUPTS.

Whatever you say. ;-)

Your explanation does make sense, but my observations would appear to
disagree with it. Perhaps there is an alternate explanation? Might some
clone makers have realized that this "flaw" existed in the original PC
bus design, and designed their bus to correct it? Such things are not
unprecedented; the original IBM printer port required a hardware
modification to become bidirectional, but most clone boards are
bidirectional right out of the box.

Before you start flaming someone as a liar, you might want to check your
own facts.