There are plenty of affordable imported "multi I/O" boards available in the
under $30 range. These boards usually have 2 serial ports and a parallel port
as well as a game port (joystick). At the least, you'll get one or two
additional serial ports and another printer port for a very nominal cost.
Look for the ones that will allow selection of other than IRQ 3 and 4 for the
serial ports and will also allow selecting any comport number 1 to 4 with
various addresses. IRQ 2 (com 3) and IRQ 5 (com 4) are the "oddball" ones
that CT (both ver 7 & 8) would support. As someone else said, IRQ 2 is
probably not available due to cascading of the IRQ's 9 and up. I have found
boards like this in Dayton for $16. "Sharing" IRQ5 with your printer port is
ok under DOS, but with OS/2, neither will work properly.
73,
Bob Naumann KR2J@aol.com
>From robert penneys <penneys@freezer.cns.udel.edu> Sat Apr 9 00:42:09 1994
From: robert penneys <penneys@freezer.cns.udel.edu> (robert penneys)
Subject: CT ver 9?
Message-ID: <9404082342.AA07159@freezer.cns.udel.edu>
I hear CT ver 9 is on the way. Any ideas on what new it might offer?
Such as customizable for whatever contest? Tnx Bob
Bob Penneys, WN3K Frankford Radio Club Internet: penneys@pecan.cns.udel.edu
Work: Ham Radio Outlet (Delaware) (800) 644-4476; fax (302) 322-8808
Mail at home: 12 East Mill Station Drive Newark, DE 19711 USA
>From robert penneys <penneys@freezer.cns.udel.edu> Sat Apr 9 00:43:52 1994
From: robert penneys <penneys@freezer.cns.udel.edu> (robert penneys)
Subject: 4 serial ports
Message-ID: <9404082343.AA07162@freezer.cns.udel.edu>
I see the thread about 4 com ports.
I run a 486 with 2 serial, 2 parallel and 1 sound blaster.
How inexpensively and dependably could I go to 4 com ports?
Tnx Bob
Bob Penneys, WN3K Frankford Radio Club Internet: penneys@pecan.cns.udel.edu
Work: Ham Radio Outlet (Delaware) (800) 644-4476; fax (302) 322-8808
Mail at home: 12 East Mill Station Drive Newark, DE 19711 USA
>From Don Nutt KJ6TC <kj6tc@netcom.com> Sat Apr 9 01:01:36 1994
From: Don Nutt KJ6TC <kj6tc@netcom.com> (Don Nutt KJ6TC)
Subject: Future of Single Op?
Message-ID: <Pine.3.85.9404081736.A7686-0100000@netcom4>
I agree..... I have been in a location where ther was no "PACKET
CLUSTER". I was on my own in SO catagory. I still like the SO catagory
(though lately I have been MO at another station). To remove it would
just leave a gap. I have never operated a SO assisted.
On Fri, 8 Apr 1994, John Dorr K1AR wrote:
------------
> The fact is that there are huge numbers of people who still choose to
> operate "real" single operator. It's either by choice or perhaps due to
> limited access to packet (or lack of equipment). I think it's dangerous
> to assume that the world is no longer interested in single operating
> (unassisted) by simply measuring it according to what the big boys are
> doing and how they compare to each other across categories.
>
>
------Hack hack, the rest is gone......to the bit bucket..... -------
Don Nutt
kj6tc@netcom.com
|