| ??? 01/28/11 20:25 Read: times |
#180890 - Still don't think so Responding to: ???'s previous message |
IF this "abuse" of the parity bit had been an established, standard practice then, surely, Aubrey wouldn't have subsequently have given it as a "design idea"...?
http://www.8052.com/forumchat/read/180881 Or maybe that's just (another) example of history repeating itself...? |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Origins of 9-bit, "Multiprocessor" UART mode? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do not know, but | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| begged question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Pre-'51 | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I do not remember... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not remembering == Don't recall reading | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you forgotten 68xx? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| No list of model numbers, so nothing to have forgotten | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How I spent my time | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Yes | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Motorola not forgotten | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Have you forgotten your rule... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Sub-question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Parity | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Works both ways | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| LOL | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I don't think so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Exactly | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Still don't think so | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
oscillation in system | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Cross-Post | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Hee Hee... | 01/01/70 00:00 |