From: nobody@xmission.com
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:39:48 GMT, in comp.sys.tandy, "Wesley"
wrote:
>I would think that any modem would back down all the way to 300 baud...but
>of course I've never tried it, so I can't say for sure. Seemed to me that
>every modem spec sheet I saw seemed to include about anything... Kinda like
>how I can still boot DOS and run Windows 3.1 on my Pentium-4 PC.
>
>Seems to me the biggest problem would be finding a BBS to dial up to... :-)
>Or rather make that :-( Seems like even the few telnet ones that have
>been around are disappearing. Though I'll have to honestly say I've not
>gone searching recently.
If it were me, I'd put a modem back into my PC (although I'd have to dig
pretty deep into the junkpile to find any kind of modem) and set it to
auto-answer with a simple terminal emulator. It's not a BBS, but it's
enough to verify a working modem connection.
You'd need a 2nd landline to do the dial-and-answer thing, but IIRC reading
in my Hayes manual that it was possible to connect two modems using an RJ11
cable, thus forming a serial link without requiring a POTS network. Of
course this arrangement cannot generate the signals needed to spur the
auto-answer modem, but you could still manually trigger the answering modem
(the "ATA" command, I think). Wikipedia has a page with the common Hayes
modem command set.
Good grief, this brings back memories...some of my earliest modem
experiences involved the Color Computer Serial Adapter Program Pak attached
to a Hayes Smartmodem 300, and quickly realizing just how much the pak's
included terminal emulator sucked. It ran in native 32x16 text mode, and
could not keep up with a 300 bps connection. I had better luck writing my
own in BASIC. Later I wrote one in pure assembler. It drove a 42x24(?)
graphical text display, and easily kept pace with the serial port's maximum
9600bps on that mighty 0.89MHz 8-bit processor. Good times, good times....
-Scott
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
