> Hmmm, I read the message a little differently... I got it as they did
> not recommend Stac at bandwidth "exceeding" 128K due to CPU load. This
> would be a particularly wise disclaimer to make based on their lack of
Yah thats what I understood too based on other sentenced in the paragraph.
Its just that, that one stood out for some reason. No biggie.
> implementation/testing on the OR-HS (128K works great on ISDN and the
> OR-U) and the fact that "some", will despite warnings... try it at higher
> speeds on the OR-HS, when it is in-fact actually available on that
> platform.
Thats probably what was meant. As I said, I just didnt understand it and
wanted it clarified a bit better.
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~
Jake Messinger 713-772-6690 jake@ams.com
Advanced Medical Systems, Inc. jake@uh.edu
8300 Bissonnet #400
Houston, Texas 77074 http://www.ams.com/~jake
~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~'`^`'~*-,._.,-*~