terry@EESUN1.EECE.KSU.EDU (Terry Hull) (06/20/90)
jeff@faximum.UUCP (Jeff Tate) writes: >I have a clone 386 running SCO 3.2. I am quite happy with it except >when I try to send raster-graphics to my HP IIc over the // port, when >I get calssical Egyptian cuneiform scrawl The parallel port does not support 8 bit characters under SCO Unix. The serial ports do, but obviously they are slower driving the printer. -- Terry Hull Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Kansas State University Work: terry@eece.ksu.edu, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!terry Play: terry@tah386.manhattan.ks.us, rutgers!ksuvax1!eecea!tah386!terry
walter@mecky.UUCP (Walter Mecky) (07/13/90)
In article <9007120320.AA28424@crayola.cs.UMD.EDU> terry@EESUN1.EECE.KSU.EDU (Terry Hull) writes: < jeff@faximum.UUCP (Jeff Tate) writes: < >I have a clone 386 running SCO 3.2. I am quite happy with it except < >when I try to send raster-graphics to my HP IIc over the // port, when < >I get calssical Egyptian cuneiform scrawl < < The parallel port does not support 8 bit characters under SCO Unix. < The serial ports do, but obviously they are slower driving the printer. That has been a bug and is fixed by SCO in a fix called unx-162. -- Walter Mecky [ walter@mecky or ...uunet!unido!mecky!walter ]
bill@bilver.UUCP (07/14/90)
In article <9007120320.AA28424@crayola.cs.UMD.EDU> terry@EESUN1.EECE.KSU.EDU (Terry Hull) writes: >jeff@faximum.UUCP (Jeff Tate) writes: >>I have a clone 386 running SCO 3.2. I am quite happy with it except >>when I try to send raster-graphics to my HP IIc over the // port, when >>I get calssical Egyptian cuneiform scrawl >The parallel port does not support 8 bit characters under SCO Unix. >The serial ports do, but obviously they are slower driving the printer. Now so obviously in my experience. I have a site that has an HP II a found that putting in a cheap convertor/buffer, I was able to get better performance out of an intelligent serial board (Anvil), than I could through the parallel port. -- Bill Vermillion - UUCP: uunet!tarpit!bilver!bill : bill@bilver.UUCP
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (07/23/90)
In article <9007200324.AA07449@crayola.cs.UMD.EDU> bill@bilver.UUCP writes: >In article <9007120320.AA28424@crayola.cs.UMD.EDU> terry@EESUN1.EECE.KSU.EDU (Terry Hull) writes: >>The parallel port does not support 8 bit characters under SCO Unix. >>The serial ports do, but obviously they are slower driving the printer. >Now so obviously in my experience. I have a site that has an HP II a found >that putting in a cheap convertor/buffer, I was able to get better performance >out of an intelligent serial board (Anvil), than I could through the parallel >port. Provided the parallel device driver in your UNIX is up to the task, you should be able to move up to around 4900 *bytes*/second thru the parallel port into the LJII. That would be the equivalent of 49000 bits/second thru a serial port, except that the LJII only goes up to 19200 on the serial port.* I say "up to 4900 bytes/second", because the content of the data stream has a lot to do with how fast the LJII is willing to accept data. 300 DPI bitmaps move a lot faster than plain text and positioning commands. You might only get 1500 bytes/second for text and positioning commands. Of course, you don't need as much speed for text, since the print engine speed (8PPM) dominates when printing text. Remember, a page of text might be 5-10K of data, but a bitmap page can be up to 1 meg of data. * Measured on 16 Mhz 80386 running INTERACTIVE 386/ix 2.0.2 and no-name clone parallel port. Measured by queuing up 1 page of data using "lp" command with printer off-line; put printer on-line and measure the elapsed time until print engine turns on. -Rick -- Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor| Ask about PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:| FaxiX uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/. | for UNIX/386 jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp