Re: 2400 baud support? Get real!

Marty Likier (marty@livingston.com)
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:16:46 -0800 (PST)

Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
Next message: Derek Elder: "RE: 2400 on a PM-3 - We're supporting it (fwd)"
Previous message: Prof Jake Messinger: "2400 baud support? Get real!"
Maybe in reply to: Prof Jake Messinger: "2400 baud support? Get real!"
Next in thread: Jeremy T. Elston: "Re: 2400 baud support? Get real!"

On Thu, 21 Nov 1996 09:57:38 Prof Jake Messinger wrote:
>Maybe there are some issues I am not considering or not aware of but here
>are my thoughts...
>
>
>On the other hand, if 2400 baud support is something that could easily be
>added, then they might as well do it. They must consider the costs of any
>software redesign and its implications. Sometimes fixing one problem
>causes another. I am sure they have considered this.
>

Bingo! It was easily added, didn't cause any product delays, and we really
didn't loose any precious engineering cycles to get it done.
--Marty

Next message: Derek Elder: "RE: 2400 on a PM-3 - We're supporting it (fwd)"
Previous message: Prof Jake Messinger: "2400 baud support? Get real!"
Maybe in reply to: Prof Jake Messinger: "2400 baud support? Get real!"
Next in thread: Jeremy T. Elston: "Re: 2400 baud support? Get real!"