Date: Sat, 17 Jun 1995 04:57:33 -0500 (CDT) From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> To: leisner@sdsp.mc.xerox.com (Marty Leisner) Cc: taob@gate.sinica.edu.tw, mrcpu@cdsnet.net, hasty@rah.star-gate.com, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: printer recommendation? Message-ID: <199506170957.EAA02007@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <9506161929.AA16085@gnu.mc.xerox.com> from "Marty Leisner" at Jun 16, 95 12:29:52 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <199506161817.NAA15275@bonkers.taronga.com>, you write: > >> You don't need anything faster than a parallel port. > >Unless you're printing big bitmapped images, in which case you do. > Like I said, only if the resolution of the image is the same as > the resolution of the printer... Nope. Only if the resolution of the image is the same as the resolution of the printer, or an integral multiple or divisor of it, or the postscript engine uses a variable duty cycle algorithm (a-la bresenham's), or you care about the overhead of the exchange and you don't have a printer port that does DMA or block transfers... > And parallel ports can go at about 100Kbytes/second...which is > about the speed on an ethernet that's doing anything things... You're used to overloaded ethernets. I routinely get 400k/s running backups at work, and it's not higher only because Amanda wires itself down to keep from soaking the net. Ethernet switches are nice, too. Ours has a 100 Mb/s backplane.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506170957.EAA02007>