home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!fuug!demos!kiae!glas!gn!celestial.com!bill
- From: bill@Celestial.COM
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
- Date: 19 Jul 92 01:27 MDT
- Subject: Re: SCO UNIX and parallel printing
- Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <notes@glas.apc.org>
- Message-ID: <1992Jul19.002757.13887@celestial>
- References: <1992Jul16.142009.11728@apricot.c>
- Nf-ID: #R:1992Jul16.142009.11728@apricot.c:1843396357:1992Jul19.002757.13887@celestial:-1483991485:001:1274
- Nf-From: celestial.com!bill Jul 19 01:27:00 1992
- Lines: 29
-
-
- In <qBR3NB3w164w@zswamp.UUCP> geoff@zswamp.UUCP (Geoffrey Welsh) writes:
-
- :peterw@apricot.co.uk (Peter White) writes:
-
- :> My department routinely concur with SCO in advising our sales
- :> channels to avoid parallel printers
-
- : This workaround is unfortunate; there's a whole scad of UNIX people out
- :there who have no idea how fast their laser printers are because they insist
- :on operating them at 9600 bps serial. Parallel has advantages in throughput,
- :especially on verbose work, like PostScript. Sure, an Ethernet adapter would
- :be faster still, but a parallel cable is much cheaper, especially if the
- :computer doesn't already have an Ethernet card.
-
- Given the brain-damage of the PC ``architecture'' in general, and
- the fact that the SCO parallel drivers tend to drag the processor
- down and occassionally corrupt VGA memory, I prefer the serial
- port route freeing IRQ 7 and 5 for other devices. I generally
- run at 38.4 with an Intellicom 16K serial->parallel buffer which
- gives quite acceptable performance.
-
- Bill
- --
- INTERNET: bill@Celestial.COM Bill Campbell; Celestial Software
- UUCP: ...!thebes!camco!bill 6641 East Mercer Way
- uunet!camco!bill Mercer Island, WA 98040; (206) 947-5591
- SPEED COSTS MONEY -- HOW FAST DO YOU WANT TO GO?
-
-