> > I don't see the scope to host bandwidth as that much of a big deal.
Your
> > capture bandwidth is what counts.  You will have to capture to RAM
anyway,
> > so uploading the data to the host can wait a few milliseconds.  You
only
> > need to send to the host what you can look at.  A decent trace would
be
> 1024
> > points by 10 bits.  Even packed into 16 bits this is only 2Kbytes.  In
> > reality, I'd rather have a fast 8 bits than slower 10 bits.  Either
way,
> > upload traces doesn't sound like a bottleneck.
>
> Wrong. 16 bit capture with LPT connection would mean max 1.5 Mbyte/sec
or
> 786432 samples a second if no overhead is used.
> This would give you 3 samples pr period of a 262144 Hz waveform. That's
262
> kHz people, not all that great.

You didn't understand what I was trying to say.  I see several problems
with what you are attempting, but since I'm just plain "wrong" elaborating
would be pointless.


*****************************************************************
Embed Inc, embedded system specialists in Littleton Massachusetts
(978) 742-9014, http://www.embedinc.com

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body