Re: parallel card

[wbdesnoy@acs1.acs.ucalgary.ca (Byron Desnoyers Winmill)]

Joe Kohn (joko@GotSpam?crl.com) wrote:

: If you want to believe that using the IIGS serial port is as fast as using
: a parallel port, go ahead, be my guest. It's not correct, but hey, this is
: usenet. 

Sometimes, speed is not even an issue.  In my case, the printer is being
shared by two Macs, a notebook and the IIgs.  It is also hidden in a
remote location.  Even if flipping cables or a switch box was acceptable,
the maximum length to a parallel cable is 2.5m.  This means that my
hulking box of a printer would waste lots of desk space.  It would also
mean that all of the computers would have to be in one room.

: Fortunately, for most, it's a moot point as very few HP printers these 
: days even sport a serial connection. And, for good reason:

:    "When IBM introduced the PC, in 1981, the parallel printer port was
:    included as an alternative to the slower serial port as a means for
:    driving the latest high performance dot matrix printers. The parallel
:    port had the capability to transfer 8 bits of data at a time whereas the
:    serial port transmitted one bit at a time."

As I commented, parallel has its disadvantages.  This goes for both the
parallel printer and SCSI interface, where cable lengths are typically
short. 

Besides, as many have commented, for simple ASCII dumps there is not a
huge difference in transfer time.  Most of the lag comes from actually
rendering the document.  (Think of it this way: a 19200 connection
can transfer about a page of data in one second, assuming no signal
overhead.)

So I say that it all depends upon your needs.  Personally, I think
that serial and AppleTalk are far more versitile, so the loss of speed
is not significant.  (Besides, if you had to order a parallel card,
it could take a good week until the first page is even printed.  ;-)

--
Stopped (SIGTTOU)         byron.
$