Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

USB v Parallel Connection

Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
June 21, 2004 1:50:07 PM

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

I am sure I read something on a web site or even a news group where it gave
the respective benefits of each method of connection but I can't find it.

Last week I switched from parallel to USB but when I print runs of larger
size Word files (but only 500kb) it slows my printer down to half the
normal speed. If I print smaller sizes (30 kb) back to full speed.

Any help appreciated.

Phil
June 21, 2004 2:27:38 PM

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

You didn't mention which version of Windoze you have, or the printer model,
but several things come to mind. If you're using Win98, it had no support
or very marginal support for USB, depending on whether it was the retail
version or the OEM version. Win98SE was better, but the USB support was
still imperfect. WinME and Win2K had fairly good USB support, as does
WinXP.

Unless your version of Windoze is older than Win98SE, the first thing I'd
try is to go to the printer manufacturer's web site and try to get an
updated driver for your OS version.

If that doesn't help, or if you have Win98, I'd consider upgrading to a
later OS version.

Don


"Phil" <reply to group> wrote in message
news:40d6a22b$0$4583$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> I am sure I read something on a web site or even a news group where it
gave
> the respective benefits of each method of connection but I can't find it.
>
> Last week I switched from parallel to USB but when I print runs of larger
> size Word files (but only 500kb) it slows my printer down to half the
> normal speed. If I print smaller sizes (30 kb) back to full speed.
>
> Any help appreciated.
>
> Phil
>
>
June 21, 2004 10:24:24 PM

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

Plus you need to have USB 2.0 which you'd find on a newer computer but
not on an older one. It would make a huge difference. USB 1 would
definitely be slower than parallel (I believe).

"Don" <nospam@please.gov> wrote:

>You didn't mention which version of Windoze you have, or the printer model,
>but several things come to mind. If you're using Win98, it had no support
>or very marginal support for USB, depending on whether it was the retail
>version or the OEM version. Win98SE was better, but the USB support was
>still imperfect. WinME and Win2K had fairly good USB support, as does
>WinXP.
>
>Unless your version of Windoze is older than Win98SE, the first thing I'd
>try is to go to the printer manufacturer's web site and try to get an
>updated driver for your OS version.
>
>If that doesn't help, or if you have Win98, I'd consider upgrading to a
>later OS version.
>
>Don
>
>
>"Phil" <reply to group> wrote in message
>news:40d6a22b$0$4583$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> I am sure I read something on a web site or even a news group where it
>gave
>> the respective benefits of each method of connection but I can't find it.
>>
>> Last week I switched from parallel to USB but when I print runs of larger
>> size Word files (but only 500kb) it slows my printer down to half the
>> normal speed. If I print smaller sizes (30 kb) back to full speed.
>>
>> Any help appreciated.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 12:43:33 AM

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

hi to everybody, it's the fist time joining here.

i have a problem with my new HP dj 5655. before i was printing booklets
with an old laserjet 4L, it was good, but sometimes stick the paper.
so now i wanted to print with the new machine that can do automatic
front/rear. i printed 120 pages on 30 sheets and it was great, then i
printed other 120 and it went bad. it printed pages full of dots and
lines. such a waste!
i updated drivers, software, tried everything. rebooted tha computer
went well once and then bad again. then i called HP tech support in
Italy and the man said it's normal that inkjet printers can't print big
jobs, i should print 20 pages (on 5 sheets) at the time.
is he joking? ok, i can't print 1000 pages in one go, but 20 looks
rubbish to me.
and another strange this is that my 10 years old laser start printing
after 20 seconds, the brand new 8Mb memory printer takes 10 minutes
before starting!
can you help me please?
thanks Davide
p.s. my computer is a PIII 800 with 512 Mb ram and Windows XP. the
printer is on USB connection
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 7:26:20 AM

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

"Rob" <tele*deletethis*manr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8uned05bcvsjbifk6de1rd14tr7p45061m@4ax.com...
> Plus you need to have USB 2.0 which you'd find on a newer computer but
> not on an older one. It would make a huge difference. USB 1 would
> definitely be slower than parallel (I believe).
>
> "Don" <nospam@please.gov> wrote:
>
> >You didn't mention which version of Windoze you have, or the printer
model,
> >but several things come to mind. If you're using Win98, it had no
support
> >or very marginal support for USB, depending on whether it was the
retail
> >version or the OEM version. Win98SE was better, but the USB support
was
> >still imperfect. WinME and Win2K had fairly good USB support, as
does
> >WinXP.
> >
> >Unless your version of Windoze is older than Win98SE, the first thing
I'd
> >try is to go to the printer manufacturer's web site and try to get an
> >updated driver for your OS version.
> >
> >If that doesn't help, or if you have Win98, I'd consider upgrading to
a
> >later OS version.
> >
> >Don
>
You'll need to upgrade to Windows 2000, or XP as Microsoft isn't
releasing any sort of upgrade or support for USB 1, for anything below
those two operating systems including Windows 98.

IIRC USB 1 is very slow; very very slow, much more slower than a
parallel port.

If upgrading to a new OS is not an option atm, perhaps saving the USB
printer for small things like envelopes and labels, using the parallel
for big things.

Candide
(facing the same dilemma with a Canon N100) still sitting in it's box.
June 22, 2004 11:22:45 AM

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

"Candide" <PityMePines@bigfoot.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>"Rob" <tele*deletethis*manr@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8uned05bcvsjbifk6de1rd14tr7p45061m@4ax.com...
>> Plus you need to have USB 2.0 which you'd find on a newer computer but
>> not on an older one. It would make a huge difference. USB 1 would
>> definitely be slower than parallel (I believe).
>>
>> "Don" <nospam@please.gov> wrote:
>>
>> >You didn't mention which version of Windoze you have, or the printer
>model,
>> >but several things come to mind. If you're using Win98, it had no
>support
>> >or very marginal support for USB, depending on whether it was the
>retail
>> >version or the OEM version. Win98SE was better, but the USB support
>was
>> >still imperfect. WinME and Win2K had fairly good USB support, as
>does
>> >WinXP.
>> >
>> >Unless your version of Windoze is older than Win98SE, the first thing
>I'd
>> >try is to go to the printer manufacturer's web site and try to get an
>> >updated driver for your OS version.
>> >
>> >If that doesn't help, or if you have Win98, I'd consider upgrading to
>a
>> >later OS version.
>> >
>> >Don
>>
>You'll need to upgrade to Windows 2000, or XP as Microsoft isn't
>releasing any sort of upgrade or support for USB 1, for anything below
>those two operating systems including Windows 98.
>
>IIRC USB 1 is very slow; very very slow, much more slower than a
>parallel port.
>
>If upgrading to a new OS is not an option atm, perhaps saving the USB
>printer for small things like envelopes and labels, using the parallel
>for big things.
>
>Candide
>(facing the same dilemma with a Canon N100) still sitting in it's box.
>
>
Upgrading to WinXP won't help if the computer USB port isn't version
2. This is a question of hardware/firmware. You can't turn a USB 1
port into a version 2 just by upgrading your OS.
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 9:21:57 PM

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

In article <10de6kbch77f8b0@corp.supernews.com>, Don <nospam@please.gov>
writes
>You didn't mention which version of Windoze you have, or the printer model,
>but several things come to mind. If you're using Win98, it had no support
>or very marginal support for USB, depending on whether it was the retail
>version or the OEM version. Win98SE was better, but the USB support was
>still imperfect. WinME and Win2K had fairly good USB support, as does
>WinXP.
>
>Unless your version of Windoze is older than Win98SE, the first thing I'd
>try is to go to the printer manufacturer's web site and try to get an
>updated driver for your OS version.
>
You are confusing between W95 and W98.

W95 had no USB support at all until OSR-2.1 was released, which
introduced basic USB support. However the WDM support necessary for
most high bandwidth USB devices was not available, which made USB
support on any W95 platform a bit hit and miss at best.

W98 has always had full USB and WDM support, indeed the USB software in
W98 is identical to that of W98SE and Wme.

W98 did not, however, have full firewire support. That was only added
in W98SE.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 9:32:33 PM

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

In article <8uned05bcvsjbifk6de1rd14tr7p45061m@4ax.com>, Rob
<tele*deletethis*manr@hotmail.com> writes
>Plus you need to have USB 2.0 which you'd find on a newer computer but
>not on an older one. It would make a huge difference. USB 1 would
>definitely be slower than parallel (I believe).
>
That depends on the motherboard and the port configuration.
The actual speeds of the ports are:
standard parallel port: 115kBYTES/s 0.115MBYTES/s)
USB-1: 12Mbits/s 1.5MBYTES/s
ECP/EPP parallel port: 3MBYTES/s

However, in addition to this is the protocol and handshaking overhead.
Data through the parallel port is byte-at-a-time processing, with the
processor needing to poll the port to find out if the last byte has been
acknowledged before it can send the next. This slows the process
considerably and can, depending on the motherboard hardware, heavily tie
the processor up until the entire data stream is sent to the port. USB,
on the other hand is a burst mode bus, where entire streams of data are
sent and acknowledged as a burst. This leaves the processor free to get
the next burst of data or implement something else entirely whilst each
burst is being transmitted. So, even though the peak data rate from an
ECP or EPP parallel port can exceed the data rate over USB-1, there is
usually very little difference in the sustained data rate between them,
and the processor is usually much less loaded by USB than parallel,
which means it gets back to servicing your input quicker.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Anonymous
June 22, 2004 9:41:54 PM

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

In article <2jq5aiF14au31U1@uni-berlin.de>, Candide
<PityMePines@bigfoot.com> writes
>>
>You'll need to upgrade to Windows 2000, or XP as Microsoft isn't
>releasing any sort of upgrade or support for USB 1, for anything below
>those two operating systems including Windows 98.
>
USB-2 drivers for W98 W98SE are usually available from the motherboard
or USB-2 board manufacturer. There is no need to upgrade to W2K or XP
at all. I am typing this message on a W98SE system which has 2 fully
functional USB-2 ports!

>IIRC USB 1 is very slow; very very slow, much more slower than a
>parallel port.
>
No it isn't - and I doubt he would notice the difference between USB 1 &
2 for this application in any case, since it is probably limited by the
speed that the printer can deposit ink or toner on the page, rather than
actual bus speed.
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
!