Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!pyrnj!dasys1!jpr From: jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems Subject: Re: Practical Peripherals 2400SA - Evaluation Message-ID: <8103@dasys1.UUCP> Date: 5 Dec 88 05:47:53 GMT References: <8811282004.AA13418@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <7995@dasys1.UUCP> <12006@cup.portal.com> Reply-To: jpr@dasys1.UUCP (Jean-Pierre Radley) Organization: TANGENT Lines: 20 In article <12006@cup.portal.com> 8b@cup.portal.com (S Spencer Sun) writes: >Someone (I forget who) said: >> ...Many of the "ATS=xx" commands are not rejected by the >> the Practical Peripherals 2400SA, but they also are effectively "no-ops". >Which ones in particular? Never heard that before... I said it. The manual is clear at least in this regard: certain of the S-registers descriptions carry the notation SSNIH. This is explained as "Software Supported Not Implemented in Hardware". These are S-register settings having to do with synchronous operation, which the PM2400SA does not support. You will not get an ERROR if you try to affect one of these registers with an AT command, you'll get an OK. But the modem really does nothing differently as a result of the command, so why shouldn't I call it a NO-OP? -- Jean-Pierre Radley Honi soit jpr@dasys1.UUCP New York, New York qui mal ...!hombre!jpradley!jpr CIS: 76120,1341 y pense ...!hombre!trigere!jpr