On 31/01/2025 08:20, Steve Lewis via cctalk wrote:
Hey all! So, I've found myself studying up on
RS-232 this year for a few
reasons.
I'm mulling over doing an RS232 themed talk at June VCF. Not a super
exciting topic, but I do think that RS232 has an interesting history: In
the SAGE relationship, and as a follow up to (essentially) prior telegraph
communication.
Prior to computers, TTY circuits, or TELEX systems used current loop,
typically 60ma. So usually 100volts with a current limiting resistor.
This allows long lines, with the high voltage overcoming the inductance
in the operating magnet...
From what I've read, "50 baud" was a
kind of an initial goal to beat, since
that's what the top telegraph operators could achieve (in small burst,
probably not all day). And those operators did have to also deal with
things like start/stop "bits". Maybe it wasn't an intentional goal, but
just that it establishes why "50 baud" is generally the lowest we ever see
mentioned (or, if you go slower than that, might as well use the older
tech).
In Europe I believe we use 45.5 baud. Certainly European hams used 45.5
baud.
Then 75/110/130 baud to have digital-systems
interoperate with classic
mechanical teletypes. Going any faster and those systems jam up or
overheat? These weren't yet called "serial ports", so I'm not sure
what a
late 50s system would even call their equipment that facilitate this data
exchange (since I'm not sure what kind of crystal-clock they even had
yet).
Just expensive to make faster. The IBM2741 could do 300 baud but is I
think is rather more complex that a tty.
Then, was it the SAGE program that demonstrated the
idea of doing this kind
of data exchange across copper phone lines? That is, the idea of computers
collaborating not just in a room, but across long distances (miles)? And
doing so by using an audio tone presentation? (they settled on around
3100MHz, which ended up translating to 300 baud? hence, that's basically
why the first digital to digital system data exchange settled on that baud
rate, which was reliable on both 50 and 60Hz power systems, and
meaningfully faster than prior 110 baud - so a good milestone to turn it
into a product, which was the Bell Model 103?).
so the 2741 used a 103.
I couldn't find much details (like a manual) on
the Bell 101 equipment
(anyone seen one or have a manual?). But I did find the Bell 103 manual -
the photo of its innards is grainy, so I don't understand how the Bell 103
did 300 baud without a UART (and one of the pinout lines I see did run
power, so not sure if that's-yet RS232 or not; I know RS232 was evolving
right at that same time circa 1962). I've about the 1970ish TR1402
initial DIP UART, with anything prior being an experiment (like a full
board concept by DEC).
Why do you need a UART? It just takes serial data and spits it out.....
I know from 1962, both RS232 and ASCII standards still
took maybe another
decade to really gain traction as standards (at least, from what I've
read). Getting the world to comply with any standard always takes a lot of
effort (for a practical reason of everyone still having invested in the
older tooling that was still functional). But it's interesting how those
two standards are still in use (not in their original form, but least the
1967 revisions) - extending from Baudot.and late 1800s-tech on telegraphs.
Does anyone know of any grocery stories using RS232 in the 1960s? I think
barcode scanning was just introduced in that era. I can just imagine a
smart grocery store owner, in the backroom programming their minicomputer
for payroll and inventory management. In FORTRAN and without a CRT?
Actually, in the 60s, I think included software would be negotiated with
the provider of the computer (well, I'm not sure how that differed between
minis and mainframes).
I know early microcomputers used RS232 for keyboards (1974-1976 era). The
IBM PC keyboard is essentially another form of serial.
Not always. Lots used parallel keyboards.
Well, sorry for the rambling - have other RS232
related questions, but
first wanted to focus on the historical aspects (and see if I'm somewhat on
the right track at least).
-Steve
Dave