Talk:Parallel port

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Parallel port article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Photo needed

PUT UP A PICTURE!!! PLEASE!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.69.19 (talk • contribs) 20 Nov 2004

  • Working on it... 8-) ComCat 01:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Someone had added one, but it was a slightly modified version of the one at es.com/nozomsite/parallel.htm, which doesn't have any copyright or licensing notices so is probabably a copyright violation. So I removed it. But a similar picture would be nice... --Rick Sidwell 2 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)
Due to the lack of copyright info, that image was removed on 9 April 2006 by OrphanBot.—mjb 23:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
New pic required

Just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.242.21 (talk • contribs) 13 April 2006

DuLithgow added a new image today.—mjb 23:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging with Parallel communications and Parallel transmission

Hi:

Regarding whether this should be merged with Parallel Communications/Transmission

First of all, I clicked on "(discuss)" and ended up here. IF I am at an inappropriate place with this comment, my apologies.

Now, I often send people to Wikipedia to research various portions of Computer Hardware, Software, IT, etc. They need to end up at very specific portions of those subjects (such as Parallel Ports, Centronics, and IEEE-1284). IF this portion is merged with other sections, then I hope that the person's ability to get to exactly the pieces of information that they need, will not be impeded by having the information buried amongst tonnes of other information.

Thanks in advance

Ross Tucker Canberra, Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.101.125.246 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Disagree. Do not merge the articles here. The concept of parallel communication is quite distinct from its particular implementation in the parallel port found on older PCs. Other examples of parallel communication are other buses such as GPIB and computer arcitechtures such as the 64-bit address bus. On the other hand, merging parallel communications and parallel transmission (and their serial variants) may be worthwhile. --IanOsgood 18:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Disagree Do not merge. They are completely different things.--Energman 17:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links section removed

External links were filling up with commercial and advertising sites and were removed. Please add new links that conform to WP guidelines and refrain from adding commercial links WP:EL. - Thanks Calltech 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

All our information about the parallel port is split into various disconnected sections in at least four different articles, none of which is very useful. They need to be merged into one comprehensive article. --88.110.235.235 22:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is the various versions of the parallel printer interface:

  • First, there is the Centronics style. This is discussed in the Centronics article from a historical view, as the Centronics spec is obsolete.
  • Then there is the HP Bitronics port, a variant of the Centronics interface.
  • These converged into the IEEE 1284 specification.
  • There is also the Dataproducts parallel interface, available in the M50 (Winchester) [1] and DB50 [2] connectors. (Thankfully I have not had to deal with this interface in quite a while)
  • DEC, SUN, Amstrad, Atari, Commodore and others used a variety of pinouts for Centronics parallel.
  • IBM set the defacto standard for LPT ports, setting the IRQ and other specs.

So: I would recommend this article and an overview of the parallel printer port and linking to the other articles. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 20:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't require separate articles. None of the separate articles are substantial enough that they couldn't be made into sections of this article. --88.109.83.157 23:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It has been three weeks and only the two of us have discussed this. While looking at this, I see some some basic issues with this article. First is the scope and the name. The scope of the article deals with the printer interface, whereas a parallel port can refer to a great many things. Parallel printer port would be a better title. Currently the article is PC centric- as noted above there were a number of variants and connectors. The article is also Centronics/IEEE-1284 centric as it does not note the Dataproducts paralle interface- a completely different standard. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above suggestions. IEEE 1284/Parallel Port/LPT pretty much cover the same thing, with different names. I'd just ensure each name permutation is covered in the merged article, which I'd expect would be done automatically. - MSTCrow 05:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Centronics should retain its own article focusing on the company; the information on the parallel port should probably be merged in though. Fourohfour 18:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The Centronics article should retain all of the history on how the interface was developed and how it became the defacto standard for printers. This interface was a significant and historical development in the computer industry. The details of how the Centronics interface was developed; such as why a 36 pin Amphenol connector was selected, belong in the Centronics article not in the Parallel Port article. -- SWTPC6800 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lots about IBMoid-PCs; not enough about the interface, itself

This article seems to be about the IBMoid PC implementation of the Centronics-style parallel port, rather than the port itself.

While this information can be useful, and may very well bear inclusion (along with other implementations), the article should discuss the particulars of the interface itself—including signaling, and the 36-pin micro ribbon connector that was originally used at both ends of the cable, before IBM began substituting the DB-25 at the host end.

And the DEC DB-37 connector, TI 46-pin card-edge connector and Data General 50-pin AMP connector. Tandy used a header connector, but I don't have a reference on that. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Port addresses

If there is an unused LPTx slot, the port addresses of the others are moved up. (For example, if a port at 0x3bc does not exist, the port at 0x378 will then become LPT1.) The IRQ lines, however, remain fixed (therefore, 0x378 at LPT1 would use IRQ 7). The port addresses assigned to each LPTx slot can be determined by reading the BIOS Data Area (BDA) at 0000:0408.

Should this in fact read as follows? I'm not sure enough to make the edit.

If there is an unused LPTx slot, the port addresses of the others are moved up. (For example, if a port at 0x378 does not exist, the port at 0x278 will then become LPT1.) The IRQ lines, however, remain fixed (therefore, 0x278 at LPT1 would use IRQ 6). The port addresses assigned to each LPTx slot can be determined by reading the BIOS Data Area (BDA) at 0000:0408.

The current sentence implies that there will be no change, as 0x378 is LPT1 as standard.

Be bold. This needs fixing and a citation added to nail down the right addresses, ports and interrupts.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

A diagram like this would be nice. — Omegatron 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There is actually an infobox for this: {{Infobox Connector}} --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] this sucks

this sucks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.68.27 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). — Omegatron 00:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] needs info on speed

I agree this would be nice to have. AFAIK there is no specification since the port can deliver much faster than a printer, the originally intended peripheral, requires. However the speed is relevant for other uses of the port such as

  • input sensing e.g. some data logging uses
  • data exchange between PCs

It may be difficult to find verfiable sources about speed rather than just OR. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)