On Mon, Oct 22, 2001 at 08:37:22PM -0500, Jack Ungerleider wrote: > On Monday 22 October 2001 12:11, you wrote: > > > I'm glad someone brought this up -- I was playing with my 678 over > > > the weekend, and had problems at 38400. Google tells me that some > > > ISP's say use 38400, some 9600, some other things. Google did not > > > tell me why this is. Anybody here have insight into this? > > > > I want an answer to this also. All Cisco docs for my REAL Cisco tell me > > to use 38400, but it's never worked. 9600 *ALWAYS* works. What > > gives? It seems like the standard for equipment is 9600-8-N-1 and it's > > almost guaranteed to work, yet some hardware says to use 38400. > > > > -Brian > > > Disclaimer: The following is based on some very "vintage" memories and may be > nothing more than pure hogwash at this time. You have been warned. ;-) > > Something in the deep dark recesses of my brain said, when I read these > posts, "9600 is the true hardware maximum, everything else is just > compression algorithims." No way man! And I thought real men communicate at 300 bps... Leaving the jokes aside, RS-242 serial ports with UART 16x50 can go up to 115Kb/s hardware. There is another higher speed interface RS-4xy that can go much faster. If you are speaking about modems then there are other things involved. First there is the baud speed that is limited to 2400 on POTS (plain old telephone system). Then on each baud more bits are transmited. On top of that you can add another layer: control/correction and compression. florin -- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 230 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20011022/7ad5e049/attachment.pgp