From: Marcus Andree S. Magalhaes (marcus.magalhaes_at_vlinfo.com.br)
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 11:28:32 PST
>
> On Mar 26, 2004, at 10:35 AM, Marcus Andree S. Magalhaes wrote:
>>
>> That's a "standard" convertion of serial to parallel.
>>
> I agree with Victor. There is no "Standard" serial to parallel
> conversion.
>
I disagree.
> Think about the timing of things. Think about the complexity of serial
> hand shaking, and all the various flavors of serial communications that
> a standard like RS-422 entail.
>
> The only thing standard is the connectors and the signal levels.
>
That's why I said RS-232. It's way simpler than RS-422. I'm beginning
to feel a bit dumber than usual ;-) but I still can't see what's is
so strange and weird...
> Any/Every device of this ilk that has attempted to be universal and
> standard has ALWAYS had issues in some configurations.
>
Well, there's a simple serial device that is as "compatible" and "universal"
as possible: a modem. Did we _ever_ had to configure _the modem_ to
connect to a computer using a serial port? You simply
plug it in, turn it on, configure all serial settings from _the computer_
and do _nothing_ to configure the modem itself (except init strings
for performance). Do you know why?
Well, it's just because the modem _can_ sense the serial line and react
correctly to the changes. OK, it's not a printer, but I guess it serves
to the simpler purpose of illustrating my point of view... ;)
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 26 2004 - 12:00:02 PST