Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.unix.shell,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: [OT] Dead DEC Punch card times (was Re: Taking Speedy too seriously)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2026 00:19:11 +0100
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <nl1srfF670U2@mid.individual.net>
References: <18dee4b6cab427fa$865$2574533$802601b3@news.usenetexpress.com> <ayudnc43iJgfVXr3nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> <11c8mg3$2e89e$2@kst.eternal-september.org> <_ZucnafJTvBFc3r3nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> <11c8rq9$1e6t$1@gal.iecc.com> <WfacneJt4NA3sHX3nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> <11c9ibo$2e740$1@dont-email.me> <11c9rph$2oln7$7@dont-email.me> <11cb55p$2e740$3@dont-email.me> <ESbGS.128744$Gau3.32637@fx14.iad> <11cbi32$3djvr$3@dont-email.me> <Z0cGS.111361$cLL5.87949@fx42.iad> <11cbora$3fh28$1@dont-email.me> <YRfGS.60036$Zy1.6984@fx05.iad> <11cdg4e$46jl$2@dont-email.me> <4juGS.78284$y_V1.5930@fx12.iad> <nl0duhFn18lU2@mid.individual.net> <11cf4c6$k0n0$3@dont-email.me> <81MGS.199929$MmU5.25273@fx44.iad>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net lr6ihqb/1qEa+nxFNySl4Qq6WF7mc5k6jhGdhUnZkaX0f/O6b/
Cancel-Lock: sha1:waCh66rhGIPSwbjePlnflC6vdkY= sha256:imaDBiEnI+fApdVqsovWzYjKI5UOTHNSyOHUkv5x+qo=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <81MGS.199929$MmU5.25273@fx44.iad>
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:95142 comp.unix.shell:27280 alt.folklore.computers:236521

On 2026-11-04 20:51, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2026-11-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> On 04/11/2026 09:58, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>>
>>>> You could get 9600-bps modems, but they were ten grand a pop.
>>>> And the leased line wasn't cheap either.  As ever, we balanced
>>>> price against performance.
>>>
>>> And we were told that 9600 was the limit, the theory said so. I think it
>>> was 9600.
>>
>>    for one type of technology, it was...
> 
> The mainframe I worked on could do async (although nobody
> ever did) - but since Everybody Knows that async is a
> low-speed protocol the ports weren't designed to run async
> any faster than 2400 bps, even for direct connections.
> 
> Didn't part of the RS-232 spec say that wiring had to handle
> 50-foot runs at 9600 bps?  Given cable capacitance it could
> be a crap shoot, but we managed to get async terminals
> (or emulators on PCs) to talk to a Sun workstation at the
> other end of the building at 38400 bps.
> 

I got my PC to talk to another PC at 118K with a serial port across 
perhaps 20 metres, in the 90's.

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺.