Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!bcm!uhnix2!uhnix1!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga Subject: Re: serial vs. parallel, was:(Re: Amiga as workstation) Message-ID: <1959@sugar.UUCP> Date: 10 May 88 16:37:34 GMT References: <3896@gryphon.CTS.COM> Organization: Sugar Land UNIX - Houston, TX Lines: 89 Keywords: Now now, can't you look at the big picture? In article ... richard@gryphon.CTS.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > >> What, huh?? I've never seen anything shove bits as fast over a serial line > >> as you can over a parallel line. > > > >And for most printers this extra bandwidth is completely wasted: they can't > >even keep up with 1200 baud. > > Buy a printer buffer. $49.95 ? First, a quick flame about printer buffers: So for the first Xk of the dump, the computer thinks the printer is faster. After that, the computer has to slow down, And *I* still have to wait for it, no matter how long it takes. Wrong answer. The correct answer to the "my printer is too slow and it's holding up my computer" is a spooler. And you're not even dealing with the right question. Let's look at this exchange: A: You need a parallel port. B: Why do I need a parallel port? A: It's faster. B: My printer can't even keep up with a serial port. A: Get a faster printer. A parellel port is faster than I need, so I should get a printer that's faster than I can afford just because I have a nice fast parallel port. I wasn't complaining about my printer. I was just saying that the speed of a parallel port is wasted on most printers. That is... speed isn't an issue. Capiche? > >Proposition 2: the more versatile the ports on your computer, the better. > ^^^^^^^^^ > Oh, you mean like "some devices are serial and some are parallel" ? No, I mean like everything but printers, just about, is serial. > >Claim: Serial ports are more versatile than parallel ports, because there > > is a greater variety of serial devices out there. > There are more fords than ferarris too. Whatever the hell all this proves. Fords are more versatile than ferraris, because the whole world isn't a racetrack. It's also not a print shop. > And since those "IBM-PC" (pardon the profanity) things > seem to think printers should be parallel, it's "sorta convenient" > to be able to exploit their volume of scale, ie cheap printers. That's the whole issue. And I've been bitching about parallel printers for getting on 9 years now. The only reason printers are parallel is... Tradition. > No no. Ludicrous, rediculous off the wall flame that even talk.bizarre > would reject. Talk.bizzarre is moderated now? > >I have 4 joystick ports on [my Atari 800]. Why does the Amiga have less? > As for the four joysticks, how often did you use all four ? Not often, but I sure as hell want to use two joysticks plus a mouse on my Amiga. At least two or three times a week. I really hate pulling my mouse out and plugging that joystick in for two-player games. I had to really bend over backwards in Tracers to properly handle joysticks and mice (and I think Tracers is the only game that does even a moderately decent job of this). If the mouse had its own port, or there were even three joystick ports, this wouldn't be a problem. > Now Peter, if you want more serial ports, great, knock yourself out > go buy a IBM-PC multiport card with 4 ot 8 ports on it, plug it > in and you'll be one happy puppy. Plug it in *where*? Probably in the PC/AT clone running Microport UNIX that I'm going to buy instead of an Amiga 2000. Hey, folks. Before you do Yet Another Memory Board Addon or Yet Another Hard Drive or Yet Another Genlock... how about a multiport serial card??? -- -- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter -- "Have you hugged your U wolf today?" ...!bellcore!tness1!sugar!peter -- Disclaimer: These aren't mere opinions, these are *values*.