Xref: utzoo comp.unix.internals:507 comp.unix.sysv386:1001
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!haven!uflorida!mailer.cc.fsu.edu!sun13!prism!gt0178a
From: gt0178a@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Burns)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: HP Laserjet not working under SCO Unix
Message-ID: <14574@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Date: 5 Oct 90 03:11:15 GMT
References: <4@pcssc.UUCP>
Followup-To: comp.unix.internals
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 29

in article <4@pcssc.UUCP>, dma@pcssc.UUCP (Dave Armbrust) says:

> The problem may be the binary 8 bit data being sent through the parallel
> printer driver.

Wild guess - is the xfer protocol 8 bits?

> I prefer not to use a serial interface unless this is the only
> way to solve the problem.  A parallel port should be faster
> then serial.  

The limiting factor for graphics should be the processing and printing
time, NOT the xfer rate.

		Also a parallel port does not have the problem
> of print jobs going off into 'never-never' land when the
> printer is not turned on.

True enough. I have the same problem on an HP 9000/800. HP said the
hardware protocol used w/ their mux interface doesn't support hardware
handshaking, so we're always losing files till someone turns the printer
on. Now you tell me PC's do this too?! What's wrong w/unix vis-a-vis
serial hardware handshakes?

-- 
BURNS,JIM
Georgia Institute of Technology, Box 30178, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:	  ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt0178a
Internet: gt0178a@prism.gatech.edu