Talk:Parallel communication

the true definition of parallel
RE: "resurgence of parallel data links in RF communication", I think the serial vs. parallel distinction is clear for digital channels, but not for analog. If analog channels are included in this article, then I suggest making the distiction, and saying that analog channels could be considered parallel at the bits per symbol level (V.32 etc.), or at the carriers per channel level (ADSL), even though they are serial at the wire level. Bert490 00:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * PAM and QAM are not parallel communications, they are multibit encoded serial, since they are
 * sent on a single signal. Parallel means there is more than one wire carrying information
 * at the same time. See parallel transmission which actually provides a reference. Smallpond 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that communication over wires, where each wire is one of 2 states (line code), there is a clear distinction between serial vs. parallel -- but analog channels and radio channels are a little more fuzzy.
 * The parallel transmission article seems to imply that "parallel transmission" necessarily involves wires -- radio channels can never be "parallel", by definition.
 * However, when a dozen TV stations are broadcasting, and their broadcasts hit a dozen TV antenna, and I see a row of a dozen TVs, each one tuned to a different station -- or perhaps 2 stations simultaneously with picture-in-picture -- I find it hard to call that "serial" communication.
 * So if we use that strict definition ("if there are no wires, it can't be parallel"), is there some *other* term for "simultaneously broadcasting" idea *other* than "serial"?
 * --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

help
I created this page to help the cleanup effort on Serial communications. I know there are no sources, but please be gentle -- this is my first "real" Wikipedia article. Any help would be appreciated! Bushing 07:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

merge
I suggest merging parallel transmission into parallel communication. They are so very closely related that it is simpler to cover both in one article. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

SCSI vs. FireWire
Wouldn't it make more sense to compare SCSI to SAS (Serial-Attached SCSI) than to a general purpose external interface like FireWire? FireWire is most directly comparable to USB rather than a generally disk interface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ParticularG (talk • contribs) 17:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Parallel vs serial
''The basic difference between a parallel and a serial communication channel is the number of electrical conductors used at the physical layer to convey bits. Parallel communication implies more than one such conductor.'' — is this really true? Multi-lane serial links (with lanes in parallel) have grown very common: PCIe, Ethernet (1000BASE-T onward, multi-lane fiber), USB SuperSpeed+ 20G, Thunderbolt, ... Isn't the actual difference that a parallel channel uses a single, common clock for all signals while each serial (sub)channel has its own clock, usually embedded? Additionally, number of electrical conductors is highly misleading as most serial electrical interfaces use differential signaling over twisted pairs. What about fiber? --Zac67 (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)