henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (07/04/90)
In article <3803@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: >>The biggest problem with it is that it's not available over the RS232 port. >>People would have written software to speak the printer protocol, whatever >>it was, but having to add funny new hardware just to talk to the printer... > >First, supporting apple/local/talk requires fairly highly timed detailed >protocools. If it is supported by the/a main processor, the overhead is >signifigant... It would be less significant at lower speeds, e.g. those of RS232. And talking to a printer is never free. Supporting a significant protocol is the price you pay for error-free flow-controlled transmission with full 8-bit transparency and "side channels" you can use to inquire about printer status etc. It's worth it. >If it is to be downloaded to a xxx/talk onlpy processor, >that adds signifigant complexity to a otherwise almost trivial hardware >serial (basically) interface... Having any new hardware interface *at all* is the problem. And downloading protocols into auxiliary processors seldom pays off, because then there has to be some sort of protocol between the host and the auxiliary. >... Lastly, as a printer/sharing/LAN it has >severe/major/... limitations. For a few users or a small network, it >is great... For a larger network... Who said anything about sharing? I just want one (1) machine to talk to one (1) printer. Intermachine communication is better done by an industrial-strength solution like Ethernet. -- "Either NFS must be scrapped or NFS | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology must be changed." -John K. Ousterhout | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry