Parallel port vs USB port

[ray]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Can someone advise me the benefit of USB 2.0 over parallel port and USB 1.1
port especially in terms of effective printing speed.

Thanks,

Ray

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:34:07 +0800, in comp.periphs.printers "Ray"
<NoSpam-Ray282828@Yahoo.com.HK> wrote:

>Can someone advise me the benefit of USB 2.0 over parallel port and USB 1.1
>port especially in terms of effective printing speed.

Depends a lot on the printer, as to what is the critical factor in printing
throughput. Communications and/or the actual printing process which have a
specific speed associated with it to allow the ink to dry on the paper a
bit.

Epson 1270 parallel vs usb 1.1 about the same.


________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
http://EdwardGRuf.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

[This followup was posted to comp.periphs.printers and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

In article <31vt8rF3g366pU1@individual.net>, NoSpam-Ray282828
@Yahoo.com.HK says...
> Can someone advise me the benefit of USB 2.0 over parallel port and USB 1.1
> port especially in terms of effective printing speed.

I don't think most any consumer/small-office printer can overload any
of them. Some newer printers may support USB 2, but that may be mainly
to prevent issues with some USB 2 ports that drop everything down to 1.1
speeds if a slower device is connected.

Between USB and parallel, it's mainly an issue of convenience.
Parallel is fast disappearing from printers anyways, and even from newer
computers.

--
If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
law!!
http://home.att.net/~andyross

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

> Ray <NoSpam-Ray282828@Yahoo.com.HK> wrote:

> Can someone advise me the benefit of USB 2.0
> over parallel port and USB 1.1 port especially
> in terms of effective printing speed.

The speed difference is apt to be negligible.

The parallel port still has one advantage over
USB (or LAN): you can print from DOS (not just
from a DOS window), and from BIOS using the
[PrntScrn] key.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Hi Ray,

There is a very useful site on the web called 'Everything USB'. Quoting from
one
of there pages is the following:

USB 2.0 has a raw data rate at 480Mbps, and it is rated 40 times faster than
its predecessor interface, USB 1.1, which tops at 12Mbps. Originally, USB 2.0
was intended to go only as fast as 240Mbps, but then, USB 2.0 Promoter Group
increased the speed to 480Mbps in October 1999.

There is more details on this site about how USB 2.0 has 3 different speed
rates depending on what you hook it up to.

As you might see in a previous posting, I am having problems connecting a HP
printer with USB 2.0 to an older DELL computer with USB 1.0.

Sherwin D.

Ray wrote:

> Can someone advise me the benefit of USB 2.0 over parallel port and USB 1.1
> port especially in terms of effective printing speed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ray wrote:

>Can someone advise me the benefit of USB 2.0 over parallel port and USB 1.1
>port especially in terms of effective printing speed.

With any computer that is recent enough to have USB ports, print speed
is effectively the same with either USB or Parallel connections.

Just use whatever method is most convenient or economical for you.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Ray wrote:
> Can someone advise me the benefit of USB 2.0 over parallel port and USB 1.1
> port especially in terms of effective printing speed.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ray
>
>
Almost no difference because few printers can print faster than the
slowest port can transmit data. USB may be slightly faster (HP says 10%)
because it puts less demand on the CPU.

 

[Douglas]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

That is true most times.I have a very highend photo printer that supports
firewire and USB2.0.If I connect ot to a USB1.1 port,it gives me a message
box that says "this is not a high speed connection".It will not print until
I plug it in to a USB2.0 connection.My system has both types of USB,as well
as both firewire 400 and 800.
"Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:BLidnV-K4ehArybcRVn-qA@golden.net...
> Ray wrote:
>
>>Can someone advise me the benefit of USB 2.0 over parallel port and USB
>>1.1
>>port especially in terms of effective printing speed.
>
> With any computer that is recent enough to have USB ports, print speed
> is effectively the same with either USB or Parallel connections.
>
> Just use whatever method is most convenient or economical for you.

 

[bill]

Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

Douglas wrote:

>That is true most times.I have a very highend photo printer that supports
>firewire and USB2.0.If I connect ot to a USB1.1 port,it gives me a message
>box that says "this is not a high speed connection".It will not print until
>I plug it in to a USB2.0 connection.

Then that printer is not using the official USB 2.0 format, or the
driver software is deliberately restricting the connection for some
demented reason.

Either way, it's not typical and it's not a fully compliant model.