[Coco] bluetooth vs linux

[Roger Taylor]

At 12:19 AM 4/11/2009, you wrote:
>On Saturday 11 April 2009, Roger Taylor wrote:
> >At 11:27 PM 4/10/2009, you wrote:
> >>The only think missing is minicom hasn't a clue how to do the coco's gfx
> >>colors, so a color based proggy, or one that needs a mouse won't work.
> >> Yet...
> >>
> >>There will be some details to work out, mostly using xmode to reconfigure
> >> for the right flow controls I think.
> >>
> >>Good luck everybody, and many thanks, Roger.
> >>
> >>--
> >>Cheers, Gene
> >
> >Give 19200 bps a try.    From the OS-9 prompt you should be able
> >to:  echo set baud 19200 >/t3
>
>from another shell obviously
>
> >then immediately xmode /t3 bau=7  to reconfigure the pak for 19200
> >bps for all new sessions
>
>Also from another shell, not the one running on /t3.  And since I had a shell
>on /t2, with a minicom session to it, I tried it right from this 
>chair, and it
>worked although I should set that session of minicom up for 19200 too.  And
>that still works.  Do we have a 38400? :)

I don't know if sc6551 can do better than 19200 bps.  You can replace 
the crystal in the pak with a 3.68 and set up for 19200 bps to 
achieve a 38400 bps connection.  That's the thing about using a 
faster crystal... all old software is based on the 1.8432 mhz 
crystal.  Choosing 19200 bps gets you 19200 bps.  This is why I 
haven't distributed 3.68 mhz versions of the pak because it would 
confuse newbies trying to match the baud rates which can get even 
more confusing knowing that the bluetooth module has to match that of 
the 6551.  But I'm talking at 230400 bps right now (virtual drives in 
NitrOS-9).


>And you really do want to show just how slow rz/sz is. :)  Even on 
>my machine,
>about 7300 baud is all it can muster. 6809 based machines, around 4500 baud.
>
>Yeah, rz/sz can move a file while someone is sawing the cable in two with a
>dull hacksaw.  But its error checking is a speed killer.  If this is as good
>as you claim, I should be able to use ymodem error free at 56k.  But 
>it is too
>late & I could feel better.  The missus went out to get a nanner split, and I
>sent her to a place I knew had sugar free ice cream,  said get me a small
>cone, but she bought back a pint!  And I was dumb enough to eat it 
>all, I mean
>its sugar free right?  Damn that sugar alcohol is hell on ones innards.  I
>won't do that again real soon.

The thing about CoCoNet is that no file transfer protocols are 
needed.  It can import files from the web or the remote PC and plop 
them right onto a mounted virtual disk.

In the case of NitrOS-9, you'll be able to:
  download "http://www.coco3.com/somegame"
  mount /d1 "http://www.coco3.com/new_os9_game.dsk"
  mount /d2 "c:\newdrivers.dsk"

What about remote directories?
just examples:
rdir c:\
rdir www.cocofiles.com


So, it's a trade-off... using a direct serial connection with limited 
flow control and possibly some CTS/RTS issues, or....
using a CoCoNet connection and moving files around in a better way

Ofcourse, for you having two 6551 paks allows you to have both types 
of connections.

-- 
Roger Taylor

http://www.wordofthedayonline.com