[time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc

Bob Camp lists at rtty.us
Wed Oct 10 11:49:13 EDT 2012


If they had done USB instead of HPIB / GPIB, a lot of the drivers would have
been "out of service" by the time Windows 95 came along. No chance at all of
them working under Windows 7. 

For the complexity, it'd have been better if they used something more like
Ethernet. Except in 1968, you would have set up for something other than
TCP-IP. Anybody running a Token Ring network in the basement?

No easy solution. Serial com is still with us because it's a lowest common
denominator. I'm sitting here coding it into a new product right now (once
the uber super compiler finishes a build). It's supported on just about
every chip set in the universe. I suspect it will outlive the cockroaches. 


-----Original Message-----
From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com] On
Behalf Of David
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2012 10:54 AM
To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
Subject: Re: [time-nuts] 57600 baud rate with Basic etc

What aspects of USB would HP have used?  Just the complexity of a USB
OHCI/UHCI would have been economically prohibitive compared to an
asynchronous serial UART.  An OHCI/UHCI is more like an ethernet
controller and those took up the space of entire expansion boards

What they did come up with was HP-IB although I would have preferred
it to be serial and galvanically isolated.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 10:28:46 -0400, paul swed <paulswedb at gmail.com>

>I have never figured out why HP did not develop USB in 1969? Not very far
>sighted. ;-)

time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
To unsubscribe, go to
and follow the instructions there.

More information about the time-nuts mailing list