| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 60476 | 2005-08-03 05:35:00 | Why parallel instead of USB for printers? | BillT (1718) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 377765 | 2005-08-03 05:35:00 | I have recently been evaluating b&w laser printers, to replace my aged Panasonic KX-PS600 (a new drum would cost more than a new printer!) After researching a wide range of possible printers and multi-function devices for home use, I had narrowed my choice to HP Laserjet 1022 or Brother HL5140. Then I have just read in the latest issue of PC World magazine (Aug 2005, page 95) the comment from PC World staffer that “... you simply should not buy a printer that doesn't include a parallel port. USB printers have too many limitations”. I would like to understand more about the downside of USB, as the possible Laserjet is USB only! I run my present laser printer on parallel and an Epson Stylus on USB. To the best of my knowledge, neither have given any problems associated with their respective ports. ----------------- Also, running costs have been one important factor in my evaluations, particularly as toner for the old Panasonic only costs around $45 – less than half what toner now seems to cost. Any comments on consumables for the above two printers? Thanks in anticipation, BillT |
BillT (1718) | ||
| 377766 | 2005-08-03 05:50:00 | Windows 95 had almost no support for USB (last version had minimal support) and original Windows 98 (before 98SE) was also hit-and-miss for USB. Linux also may be dodgy. Apart from that USB is fine, and may be your only choice in many cases. I learnt my lesson on toner many years ago, after first buying a panasonic, and found that a new drum was as costly as the printer (and it needed one after a measly few thousand copies), so bought a Brother HL1040 only to find it was the same, ended up an expensive lesson. While the HP that I now have (LJ2100) costs around $99 for a "remanufactured" toner pack, it comes with a new drum every time and thats what makes the difference. The total cost per print is good as I don't need to factor in a new printer every year, as I was having to do with the Panasonic and Brother. |
godfather (25) | ||
| 377767 | 2005-08-03 05:56:00 | I usually find adding printer drivers is easier with parallel and the same goes for network print servers.. USB print servers seem a bit picky as to what type of printer you can connect to it.. | paulw (1826) | ||
| 377768 | 2005-08-03 06:04:00 | Dos apps: they just don't understand you don't have a dot matrix printer attached, just for them. I have got USB printers to work with Dos apps, but it was jumping through hoops to do it. -Qyiet |
qyiet (6730) | ||
| 377769 | 2005-08-04 09:32:00 | Thanks for those replies. I should perhaps mention that I still run my desktop machine on Win Me - because the old Panasonic won't run under XP. I run my more recent notebook on XP. Both machines have an available parallel port, so I envisage using that for the printer on either PC (perhaps even through a 2x1 A-B switch). However, both PCs also have a spare USB so that option is available also. Hence my dilemna about which way to go. Thanks again, BillT |
BillT (1718) | ||
| 377770 | 2005-08-04 10:55:00 | Don't worry then, as has been said, unless you have an old O/S or want to print from old software it doesn't matter. | pctek (84) | ||
| 377771 | 2005-08-04 11:12:00 | I tend to like parrallel port printers because in my experience you get less "printer not detected" issues. I've often seen problems where the PC can't communicate with the printer if using USB. They are easily fixed just by unpluging the USB cable and pluging them back in, but explaining this to people gets painful. | gibler (49) | ||
| 377772 | 2005-08-04 13:05:00 | Afair few printers come with both options, some have the addition (at a cost) of an ethernet port for easier network printing. You now have the option, if you wish, to upgrade your OS, so the issue may not be an issue any more.. |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 377773 | 2005-08-06 01:56:00 | Parallel has a number of advantages, though I'm not keen on the idea of using a switch to share a printer between computers. I suspect a USB connection would work most consistently when the printer is always turned on with the computer. If it's off when the OS starts up, it might or might not be properly recognised when it is turned on. (An extreme case --- a Canon inkjet I was looking at last night had a recommendation to "just reinstall the driver" if it was turned on after W98 had started). Modern printers like to talk back to the OS, and using a switch might get things a bit confused. "Plug and Play" has a bad side. I've always preferred telling the OS what the hardware is. I do know better. ;) |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 1 | |||||