[Coco] 16550 wasRe: RS232 paks

[Mark Marlette]

Roger,

A few quick points for the ones that are growing tired of this thread,  
as am I.

  1. Lets agree to disagree.
  2. We have different requirements for our designs.

Worn-out thread followers might want to exit at this point, maybe not  
though??

You specifically asked me for some test cases. I gave them to you. You  
ignored all of my questions, instead answering them with questions and  
skirting the issues of the 6551. In the future, please do not ask me a  
question that you don't want to hear the answers to.

You post messages to the list commenting on every step of your design,  
announcing your progress, and openly soliciting questions and  
comments; consequently, I and others respond. In my industry, this is  
called "peer review."

Yet there is a pattern to your responses that suggest to me that you  
don't work in this industry.  If the critique isn't complimentary or  
your ego isn't being stroked, you either avoid answering the question  
or you get defensive.

In these same posts, you attempt to mask the true inner workings of  
your products with terms like "magic" and other hyperbole.  Marketers  
hype; engineers demystify things.

What you are doing is nothing new, no squinting required. I know how  
you are making the device go 115.2k; I also know how you are getting  
your device to work in your app and avoiding the 6551 errata. I also  
know that there is NitrOS-9 support for your device.  There is nothing  
new here. Your pak, outside of your app, will work as good or as  
poorly as any other RS-232 pak which is deemed by what you are doing.  
You are not smarter than the chip manufactures, trust me when I say  
this. You really think that they want to place a statement like that  
in their data sheets? Discounting the CTS/RTS problem and blaming it  
on a specific modem may seem plausible to non-techies, but is  
ridiculous to technical people.

There is a difference between innovation and integration.  Your  
bluetooth pak is an example of the later.  I realize that you have  
time and money invested in to your product and you are avoiding the  
questions that you directly asked me to save some face on it. We  
clearly have different views on our requirements and quality of our  
products, and that is ok.  But every time you try to blow smoke, I  
will be there to clear the air.

As to your comments of, I believe it was, '90% of programmers don't  
know what they are doing' or something close to that, is something  
that many here may take offense to. Are you the 10% that are "in the  
know?"  You are talking to a smart group of people here on this list;  
9 out of 10 don't know what they are doing? If I made a statement like  
that at work I would not be allowed to work on projects, be labeled as  
a crazy person and then be looking for another job.

Again, this tells me that you probably don't make your living in the  
field of hardware/software development.

Regards,

Mark
Cloud-9

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Taylor" <operator at coco3.com>
To: "CoCoList for Color Computer Enthusiasts" <coco at maltedmedia.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 10:04:11 PM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
Subject: Re: [Coco] 16550 wasRe:  RS232 paks

At 06:34 PM 3/4/2009, you wrote:
>Roger,

>Again I ask you.
>Are you hardware handshaking with your device?
>Do you have a test case under NitrOS-9?
>Please expand in detail if you wish.

Mark, I explained to you many times that my pak was a working clone 
of the Tandy Deluxe RS-232 Pak.  Yes, the CTS and RTS signals are 
there, and Yes, the pak works under OS-9 and NitrOS-9.

Do any of your items work the same under Color BASIC as they do for 
the NitrOS-9 hackjob of OS-9 ?    Has anything in NitrOS-9 been 
changed from the original OS-9 just to get one of your gadgets to 1) 
function better, 2) just function, 3) have a practical use?


-- 
Roger Taylor

http://www.wordofthedayonline.com


--
Coco mailing list
Coco at maltedmedia.com
http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco