From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] An old laptop
Message-ID: <20020423174150.O13019@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <20020423121833.I13019@cackle.proxima.alt.za> <200204231037.LAA22649@cthulhu.dircon.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <200204231037.LAA22649@cthulhu.dircon.co.uk>; from Digby Tarvin on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 11:37:36AM +0100
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:41:50 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7a0dfab4-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 11:37:36AM +0100, Digby Tarvin wrote:
>
> Lucio De Re:

> > I don't like the PC parallel port, however, it seems to be quite
> > weakly supported all round.  My limited electronic knowledge does
> > not explain why, for example, my WinNT box has so much trouble
> > printing (admittedly past an HP scanner) - it positively grinds to
> > a ver slow pace.
>
> Early PC hardware did leave a lot to be desired. Unfortunately the
> machien pre-dates PCMCIA interfaces, so my only options are serial
> or parallel, and I don't think serial was much better...
>
Serial is slower but better implemented, ever since the 16550s, the
devices all seem to have identical characteristics, I am not convinced
that applies to the parallel port.

All in all, wired PPP at 115.2 kbps may be OK.

> Sure - if I could work out how to program it, it could be useful for
> a whole range of old machines that have parallel ports but need a
> LAN interface. If you can point me at such an archive, that would
> be great.
>
I'll ask.

++L