Talk:RS-232

Removed pending confirmation:

(Note that bits-per-second is not generally the same as baud; when techniques like Quadrature Amplitude Modulation are employed, more than one bit can be transmitted per baud. In most RS-232 applications, only very low bitrates have one bit per baud.)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but isn't this person getting analogue modem signals confused with digital serial signals? -- Tim Starling 07:29, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sampling rates at the central office for voice lines prevent the baud rate from surpassing about 4 k baud; but the bit rate is higher because discrete signals represent multiple bits. But yes, this seems to go in another article.Waveguy 22:57, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The quote above is correct, but probably doesn't belong here, because of what Tim said. It's really more relevant to the modem than to RS-232, although the two were almost synonymous in home computing (for the average user, at least), especially back when most modems were external. --radiojon 08:12, 2003 Sep 5 (UTC)

Serial Communications

The discussion of Serial communications would be better in that article (which also needs work). --Wtshymanski 21:34, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Started tuning up the RS 232 article. Please leave the commented text till I have a chance to move it to serial communications.

You know, RS 232 doesn't really define a "bus" as I understand the term - it's more of a point-to-point connection, which is indeed one of the limiations I refer to in my contributions. --Wtshymanski 04:21, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Name change from RS-232 to EIA-232

I wonder whether anybody would disagree if i change this article's name to EIA-232. Currently, a search for EIA-232 is re-directed to RS-232. IMHO, i think it should be the other way around. ie RS-232 should be re-directed to EIA-232. To support my opinion, below is a foot note from "Unix System Administration Handbook" 3rd edition page 94.

To be technically correct, RS-232 should be refered to as EIA-232. However, no one will have the slightest idea what you are talking about.

Please, say something as i plan to change the name sometime in future if this post doesn't generate objections.

OK, I object. The footnote you quote is true: Although EIA-232 is technically correct, nobody ever calls it that. Google gives 1,600,000 hits for RS-232, and only 57,100 for EIA-232; it's obvious the new name was never really accepted. And there are a lot of present (and probably future) articles that link to RS-232 that would need to be changed; not worth the effort. --Rick Sidwell 20:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Object - RS-232 port is the more frequently used terms, though I've also seen it designated "EIA RS-232". Since this is what the standard was known as during it's heydey, I don't think a name change improves the utility of the article. A redirect from "EIA 232" to this article would work. --Wtshymanski 00:15, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for feedback. I have to give in as i agree that changing the name will have too much ripple effect on other articles. gathima 00:33, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Why is EIA-232 correct? SchmuckyTheCat 02:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not any more correct than RS 232. The current standard is TIA-232-F Interface Between Data Terminal Equipment and Data Circuit-Terminating Equipment Employing Serial Binary Data Interchange (ANSI/TIA-232-F-1997 (R2002) (see [1] (http://www.tiaonline.org/standards/search_results2.cfm?document_no=TIA%2D232%2DF)- so changing the article title to an intermediate, also obsolete, description seems bootless. TOo bad they don't say "Recommended Standard" but when you think about it, what other kind could there be? I would expect that most of the serial ports out there are labelled "RS 232" since revision C was the mostly widely referenced, though often ignored, edition of the standard during the Great Computer Boom of the latter 20th century. --Wtshymanski 14:05, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• That's what I thought. Thanks. SchmuckyTheCat 17:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Why?

Why is the {{ipstack}} template here? It doesn't clarify the article any and most uses of RS 232 have nothing to do with Internet protocols. Would anyone object if I made it go away? --Wtshymanski 03:51, 24 May 2005 (UTC)