Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 15:39:55 -0700 (PDT) From: "Eric J. Schwertfeger" <ejs@bfd.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, davidg@Root.COM, dawes@rf900.physics.usyd.edu.au, SimsS@Infi.Net, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Some recent changes to GENERIC Message-ID: <Pine.BSI.3.94.960710153631.27711A-100000@harlie> In-Reply-To: <199607102118.OAA27299@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 10 Jul 1996, Terry Lambert wrote: > > Agreed with on machines coming off the shelf that way, but most people I > > know that add an internal modem add it as com3/irq5, since they don't have > > to figure out how to disable a comm port. which isn't 4 port, but it also > > isn't two port. > > Most interrupt capable PC software that supports com3: and com4: do so > by allowing only one of com1:/com3: or com2:/com4: to be open and > running with interrupts enabled simultaneously. While I agree that a lot of people don't bother avoiding interrupt conflict, I have to disagree with the software not allowing for it. I honestly can't remember a single program from 5 years of consulting that allowed for com 3 without letting me specify what IRQ com 3 was on. Even Win3.1 (can't speak for older versions) can be set, just not easily. I've seen a lot more braindead hardware (cheap internal modems) that only allow for IRQ 3/4.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSI.3.94.960710153631.27711A-100000>