Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!amdcad.amd.com!pepsi!phil
From: phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: PacificPage, Parallel vs. Serial
Message-ID: <1990May4.200917.15183@bach.amd.com>
Date: 4 May 90 20:09:17 GMT
References: <1990May4.154152.7326@cs.umn.edu>
Sender: usenet@bach.amd.com (NNTP Posting)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices; Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 17

In article <1990May4.154152.7326@cs.umn.edu> gardiner@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (David Gardiner) writes:
|The general consensus is that parallel is faster than serial.  I
|am trying to find the thing I read that indicated otherwise.  I'm

In general, "it depends". I have a printer sharing box that runs
at 115Kb serial, which is supposed to be faster than parallel.

BUT, the HPLJ runs at a max serial of 19,200. So parallel into
it ought to be faster.

An Apple LW normally runs at 9600. But if you feel like writing
a Postscript program to change its speed, you can go up to 38,400
or 57,600 (I think). And of course, it doesn't have a parallel input.

--
Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com		{uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil
Government: organized crime with an attitude.