BJL on Windows XP (it works!)

[+rdemming]

Thunderbird wrote:

Yes, but since Microsoft is forcing the Parallel port off the Motherboards by no longer supporting it, it makes me wonder if they put this ability into XP.

 

I use "UserPort" by Tomas Franzon under Windows XP Professional to 'open up' the printer port for 'dos' programs and it works perfectly with BJL. I also use it for my Eprom programmer under WinXP.

 

You can download it from: http://www.mattjustice.com/parport/par_nt.html

 

That MS would drop parallel port support sounds silly to me since there are still a lot of parallel printers in use (and still being manufactured).

 

B.T.W. Does somebody like the new WinXP look and feel. The first thing I did in XP was switching back to classic look and feel and disabling those slow menu animation effects.

 

Robert

[LinkoVitch]

That MS would drop parallel port support sounds silly to me since there are still a lot of parallel printers in use (and still being manufactured).

 

They are not dropping support for it, but making it so that programs cannot directly access hardware without a suitable driver (which I exists i the kernel layer?).

 

it's the way it should be done really, you don't want your software playing with your hardware directly, potential security risk or cause for a conflict.

[Thunderbird]

That MS would drop parallel port support sounds silly to me since there are still a lot of parallel printers in use (and still being manufactured).

 

Why is it silly? Was it silly that they dropped the ISA bus? There were plenty of cards being made for it at the time and plenty of them out there in the field as well.

 

Thr parallel port is a really poor interface and there are much better choices while allow for Plug@Play and a lot more speed and flexability.

 

They are indeed planning on dropping the Parallel port, and you can tell that nobody cares by the number of printers and scanners out there that are USB only.

[LinkoVitch]

Why is it silly? Was it silly that they dropped the ISA bus? There were plenty of cards being made for it at the time and plenty of them out there in the field as well.

 

Thr parallel port is a really poor interface and there are much better choices while allow for Plug@Play and a lot more speed and flexability.  

 

They are indeed planning on dropping the Parallel port, and you can tell that nobody cares by the number of printers and scanners out there that are USB only.

 

There are lots of uses for such a simple interface as the parellel port though. trying to use USB means interface hardware, but if you simply want to turn on and off LED's then the parellel port is what you would want.

 

I don't think many people are overly keen on USB printers. I have a USB/parellel printer from HP, and their own manuals recommend that you use the parellel port instead USB.

 

Better interfaces are not always what is needed, every server that we have at work has a parellel port, and they are on the most part a lot more advanced than modern desktop PC's.

[Thunderbird]

There are lots of uses for such a simple interface as the parellel port though.  trying to use USB means interface hardware, but if you simply want to turn on and off LED's then the parellel port is what you would want.

 

I don't think many people are overly keen on USB printers.  I have a USB/parellel printer from HP, and their own manuals recommend that you use the parellel port instead USB.

 

Better interfaces are not always what is needed, every server that we have at work has a parellel port, and they are on the most part a lot more advanced than modern desktop PC's.

 

I don't know why you're arguing with me about this. I'm just telling you what the PC and peripheral makers are doing. USB is much easier to add to a motherboard these days and takes up lass space on the back of the PC. The parallel port may be great for wiring LEDs to and making little blinky lights but how many people do you think actually do this with their PC? 0.00000001%-0.0000002%?

 

Also, if you have a Parallel/USB enebled printer, then chances are that it was designed back in the Win98 days, when USB was in it's infancy and printer companies were just learning the ways to write drivers. They would naturally recommend using the interface they were most confident in. Very few printers have dual interfaces anymore.

[LinkoVitch]

I don't know why you're arguing with me about this. I'm just telling you what the PC and peripheral makers are doing. USB is much easier to add to a motherboard these days and takes up lass space on the back of the PC. The parallel port may be great for wiring LEDs to and making little blinky lights but how many people do you think actually do this with their PC? 0.00000001%-0.0000002%?

 

Also, if you have a Parallel/USB enebled printer, then chances are that it was designed back in the Win98 days, when USB was in it's infancy and printer companies were just learning the ways to write drivers. They would naturally recommend using the interface they were most confident in. Very few printers have dual interfaces anymore.

 

I am not arguing with you

 

I just think MS are not ditching it, USB is much handier for peripherals like mice etc. But for things like printers (especially lasers) you want as much bandwidth as possible, if you don't have a network enabled printer then parallel is the way to go.

 

By blinking LEDs I was refering to simple projects/tasks. true this is mainly the hobbiest enthusiasts, so I agree there.

 

Perhaps USB2 will debunk the parallel port, but that will probably be a few years yet before they become as main stream as USB is now.

 

I think HP has plenty of experience in writing drivers, I am not 100% on the year I bought it but I would say it is probably around the year 2000-2001 (I bought it for doing my final year project/Thesis on).

[Thunderbird]

[i just think MS are not ditching it, USB is much handier for peripherals like mice etc.  But for things like printers (especially lasers) you want as much bandwidth as possible, if you don't have a network enabled printer then parallel is the way to go.

 

Perhaps USB2 will debunk the parallel port, but that will probably be a few years yet before they become as main stream as USB is now.

 

I think HP has plenty of experience in writing drivers, I am not 100% on the year I bought it but I would say it is probably around the year 2000-2001 (I bought it for doing my final year project/Thesis on).

 

USB2 is taking off like wildfire. Every new motherboard chipset coming out supports it. It will be about 6 months to a year before every new PC comes with USB2 standard. Since USB2 supports the old USB there's no problem with upgrading.

 

Also, parallel ports are NOTORIOUSLY SLOW. I don't know where you get the idea they are used for fast data transfers. The noise and capacitance problems and synchronizing problems make them horrid for speed. You want a nice serial connection like USB or Firewire for speed.

 

The old ports are getting the axe.

 

http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/computers/...267937-5,00.htm

[+rdemming]

They are not dropping support for it, but making it so that programs cannot directly access hardware without a suitable driver (which I exists i the kernel layer?).

 

it's the way it should be done really, you don't want your software playing with your hardware directly, potential security risk or cause for a conflict.

 

Yes, I know. That is already since the WinNT 3.x days. That is not new for XP or future versions.

 

Robert

[LinkoVitch]

USB2 is taking off like wildfire. Every new motherboard chipset coming out supports it. It will be about 6 months to a year before every new PC comes with USB2 standard. Since USB2 supports the old USB there's no problem with upgrading.

 

Also, parallel ports are NOTORIOUSLY SLOW. I don't know where you get the idea they are used for fast data transfers. The noise and capacitance problems and synchronizing problems make them horrid for speed. You want a nice serial connection like USB or Firewire for speed.  

 

The old ports are getting the axe.

 

http://www.zdnet.com.au/reviews/computers/...267937-5,00.htm

 

USB2 may be on all new mobos but not everyone is going to buy a new PC for a while yet.. quite a few people are still happy with their older systems (my Wifes K6-2-450 is more powerful than she needs, so why buy a new one?) I am sure lots of people will be in similar positions. But as you say they will be replaced.

 

RE: speed.. ECP/EPP ports (which should be on all current desktop machines), are twice as fast as USB. I did a quick Google before making my earlier post, but I am on a different machine now and can't remeber the damn search terms I used I can post it later if you like? quite interesting shows throughputs of various types of interface. it listed the following:

 

Normal parallel = .115 MB/s

USB = 1.5 MB/s

ecp/epp = 3 MB/s

 

TBH I would prefer FireWire (FireWire 2 is out now or soon isn't it?, USB2 is approx same speed as FireWire?).

 

I still don't think MS will remove support for parellel just yet, still too widely used. I would be suprised if XP or Win2K didn't support ISA either.. wonder if XP would recognise VESA localbus tho

[Thunderbird]

USB2 may be on all new mobos but not everyone is going to buy a new PC for a while yet.. quite a few people are still happy with their older systems (my Wifes K6-2-450 is more powerful than she needs, so why buy a new one?)  I am sure lots of people will be in similar positions.  But as you say they will be replaced.

 

RE: speed.. ECP/EPP ports (which should be on all current desktop machines), are twice as fast as USB.  I did a quick Google before making my earlier post, but I am on a different machine now and can't remeber the damn search terms I used I can post it later if you like?  quite interesting shows throughputs of various types of interface.  it listed the following:

 

Normal parallel  = .115 MB/s

USB = 1.5 MB/s

ecp/epp = 3 MB/s

 

TBH I would prefer FireWire (FireWire 2 is out now or soon isn't it?, USB2 is approx same speed as FireWire?).

 

I still don't think MS will remove support for parellel just yet, still too widely used.  I would be suprised if XP or Win2K didn't support ISA either.. wonder if XP would recognise VESA localbus tho

 

 

Widely used snidley snoozed.... it doesn't matter. They are dropping it sooner rather than later. You don't get it, do you? PC sales are down this year. That means they will drop it FASTER. You see, if they drop support for it then you won't be able to get new peripherals to go with your OLD computer so you'll have to buy new ones. Or, if you have a NEW compulter you'll have to buy NEW peripherals to go with it. See? It's a way to get you to spend money! Everybody WINS! (except the customer). But this is how we get people to toss out their old PC's and peripherals, even though they would last 5 years more before breaking down.

 

As for port speed, USB 1.0 is rated for 12Mb/Sec throughput. THIS IS FASTER THAN 10Mb ETHERNET. It's also 4X faster than your parallel port spec. In real use it it measured at about 5-6MB/Sec but that's bidirectional bandwidth and that's better than your best spec for parallel.

 

USB 2.0 is much faster. Faster than firewire. It's around 480Mb/Sec.

[LinkoVitch]

As for port speed, USB 1.0 is rated for 12Mb/Sec throughput. THIS IS FASTER THAN 10Mb ETHERNET. It's also 4X faster than your parallel port spec. In real use it it measured at about 5-6MB/Sec but that's bidirectional bandwidth and that's better than your best spec for parallel.

 

USB 2.0 is much faster. Faster than firewire. It's around 480Mb/Sec.

 

Yes I know USB is technically faster than base 10 (unless you have full duplex base 10, which will give you 10Mb/s in both directions), but distance isn't the same etc. But who really uses Base 10 these days.. 100 Is not much more expensive and in the most part the same cables will work. Plus the price of GigE over copper has dropped drastically.. can pick up NIC's for around £20 ($35 ish) now.. I am tempted

 

ecp/epp is still faster than that though.. 12Mb/s = (about) 1.2 to 1.5 MB/s

 

whereas ecp/epp is around 30Mb/s - 37Mb/s.

 

Thats what I thought with USB2.. FireWire 2 is a lot faster still.. speeds are going crazy nowadays.

[Stone]

Personally I'd be watching wireless connections as the future of interconnects. The successor to 801.1b is surely being worked on right now (and as I've been touring unis lately, some of the stuff there is really impressive) and looking past USB2 a little more will (imnsho) see everything being wireless.

 

Stone

[still pissed off at BT for sending his wireless-enabled ADSL modem and not the 801.1b interfaces]

[LinkoVitch]

Personally I'd be watching wireless connections as the future of interconnects. The successor to 801.1b is surely being worked on right now (and as I've been touring unis lately, some of the stuff there is really impressive) and looking past USB2 a little more will (imnsho) see everything being wireless.

 

Stone

[still pissed off at BT for sending his wireless-enabled ADSL modem and not the 801.1b interfaces]

 

Wireless is nice, but it's just like running on a hub network. Only so much airspace and you have the issues with environmental radiation etc hitting your bandwdith.

 

Can't beat a nice switched network especially if it's fibre GigE

[Thunderbird]

Yes I know USB is technically faster than base 10 (unless you have full duplex base 10, which will give you 10Mb/s in both directions), but distance isn't the same etc.  But who really uses Base 10 these days.. 100 Is not much more expensive and in the most part the same cables will work.  Plus the price of GigE over copper has dropped drastically.. can pick up NIC's for around £20 ($35 ish) now.. I am tempted

 

ecp/epp is still faster than that though.. 12Mb/s = (about) 1.2 to 1.5 MB/s

 

whereas ecp/epp is around 30Mb/s - 37Mb/s.

 

I don't want to bust your bubble, but you cannot increase the speed of the parallel port with some arbitrary numbers you pulled out of the air just because you don't like the fact that it's slow and going to be dumped very soon.

 

You said just yesterday:

 

Normal parallel  = .115 MB/s

USB = 1.5 MB/s

ecp/epp = 3 MB/s

 

Now you say:

 

ecp/epp is still faster than that though.. 12Mb/s = (about) 1.2 to 1.5 MB/s

 

whereas ecp/epp is around 30Mb/s - 37Mb/s.

 

 

I've been working with this stuff for a long time now and if you really want to get down to the technical details here's the story:

 

Standard Parallel Ports are limited by a bandwidth of less than 1MHZ, so if you were to code a routine with 100% effieicency you'd get 1MB/s throughput.

 

EPP Parallel Ports are limited by a 2MHz clock and therefore will have about 2MB/Sec throughput if every cycle is used.

 

ECP has absolutely no speed advantage over EPP because it runs on the same interface. The people promoting ECP tell you it's super-duper fast, but it's not. It just performs RLE compression on the data and sends it over the regular EPP port. If you can count RLE compressed data as "throughput" then what's to stop someone from using compression over firewire or USB? What if they used JPEG or ZIP compression? You can get 200:1 compression with those! Imagine! I can then say USB has 12 * 200 = 2400Mb/s throughput!!! Yeehaw!

 

It's simply too slow. 25-conductor cables are much more expensive and bulky and more prone to failure. It's a crappy standard and it's about time we ditched it!

[LinkoVitch]

I don't want to bust your bubble, but you cannot increase the speed of the parallel port with some arbitrary numbers you pulled out of the air just because you don't like the fact that it's slow and going to be dumped very soon.

 

 

You said just yesterday:

 

Normal parallel  = .115 MB/s

USB = 1.5 MB/s

ecp/epp = 3 MB/s

 

Now you say:

 

ecp/epp is still faster than that though.. 12Mb/s = (about) 1.2 to 1.5 MB/s

 

whereas ecp/epp is around 30Mb/s - 37Mb/s.

 

I didn't entirely pull those numbers out the air. and the 2 sets of numbers you list above that I printed are the same values.. notice the b and B signifying bits and Bytes.

 

30 Mb/s = 30 megaBITS 3 MB/s = 3 megaBYTES.

 

depending on stop bits (not sure if these are used hence the range specified), depends on if you count 1 byte as 10 bits or 8 bits. In networking it is quite common to have a 10 bit byte due to padding bits.

 

The URL I mentioned earlier where I obtained these port speeds from is:

 

http://pt3.hunter.cuny.edu/support/port_speeds.htm

 

I've been working with this stuff for a long time now and if you really want to get down to the technical details here's the story:

 

Standard Parallel Ports are limited by a bandwidth of less than 1MHZ, so if you were to code a routine with 100% effieicency you'd get 1MB/s throughput.

 

EPP Parallel Ports are limited by a 2MHz clock and therefore will have about 2MB/Sec throughput if every cycle is used.

 

Is the 1 MHz not clock speed? but as you have an 8 bit wide bus the throughput is higher. I know original parallel is not as fast. I put this down to higher voltages slowing it down. EG when I attach multimeter to parallel port pins, with BIOS set to "Normal parallel" I get 5V with it set to either epp or ecp/epp the voltage is around 2.8- 3.2 V (I rember this due to having fun and games triggering a transistor in a circuit connected to the parallel port, had to set to normal to get it to work.)

 

 

ECP has absolutely no speed advantage over EPP because it runs on the same interface. The people promoting ECP tell you it's super-duper fast, but it's not. It just performs RLE  

 

AH! I always wondered what ECP was, I guess the C is for compression?

 

firewire or USB? What if they used JPEG or ZIP compression? You can get 200:1 compression with those! Imagine! I can then say USB has 12 * 200 = 2400Mb/s throughput!!! Yeehaw!

 

As 200:1 refers to bytes wouldn't the bit equivelent be 20:1 so only 240Mb/s not 2400Mb/s ?

 

 

It's simply too slow. 25-conductor cables are much more expensive and  

bulky and more prone to failure. It's a crappy standard and it's about time we ditched it!

 

Not saying it's the best, but it's convienient, and simple.