USB vs Parallel Cable

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

I have an Epson 1280 connected with a parallel cable; it works but is it
worth using USB 2.0 instead ... It came to mind because my status monitor
(up to date version) does not work and I thought it might be because of
using the parallel cable

Thanks ...
6 answers Last reply
More about parallel cable
  1. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Liz wrote:

    >I have an Epson 1280 connected with a parallel cable; it works but is it
    >worth using USB 2.0 instead ... It came to mind because my status monitor
    >(up to date version) does not work and I thought it might be because of
    >using the parallel cable

    If the status monitor doesn't work, then you probably don't have the
    parallel port set to bi-directional. Right-click My Computer,
    Properties, Hardware tab, Device Manager, expand the Ports link. The LPT
    port should show as ECP or EPP. If not, then you don't have it set in
    the computer BIOS properly.

    You can either check and change the settings in the BIOS, or just swap
    to a USB cable and see if that works.
  2. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:23:04 GMT, in comp.periphs.printers "Liz"
    <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote:

    >
    >I have an Epson 1280 connected with a parallel cable; it works but is it
    >worth using USB 2.0 instead ... It came to mind because my status monitor
    >(up to date version) does not work and I thought it might be because of
    >using the parallel cable

    I second what Bill said. Are you sure the 1280 supports USB 2.0? I know my
    1270 is only 1,1.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
  3. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:VJKdnZHpTagRWQrcRVn-tg@golden.net...
    > Liz wrote:
    >
    > >I have an Epson 1280 connected with a parallel cable; it works but is it
    > >worth using USB 2.0 instead ... It came to mind because my status monitor
    > >(up to date version) does not work and I thought it might be because of
    > >using the parallel cable
    >
    > If the status monitor doesn't work, then you probably don't have the
    > parallel port set to bi-directional. Right-click My Computer,
    > Properties, Hardware tab, Device Manager, expand the Ports link. The LPT
    > port should show as ECP or EPP. If not, then you don't have it set in
    > the computer BIOS properly.
    >
    > You can either check and change the settings in the BIOS, or just swap
    > to a USB cable and see if that works.

    ok, it says ECP ... and now it's working after another re-boot (it doesn't
    display in the main window; I have to click Status Monitor and then it
    shows) ... but is a USB cable any better anyway ? it's not like it's a big
    investment ...

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

    Liz wrote:

    >ok, it says ECP ... and now it's working after another re-boot (it doesn't
    >display in the main window; I have to click Status Monitor and then it
    >shows) ... but is a USB cable any better anyway ? it's not like it's a big
    >investment ...

    There's little difference between the two because most printers are much
    slower than USB or Parallel data transfer rates.

    Just use which ever is more convenient or practical in your setup.
  5. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    "Bill" <bill@c.a> wrote in message news:-oydnSgFUOqebgrcRVn-2A@golden.net...
    > Liz wrote:
    >
    > >ok, it says ECP ... and now it's working after another re-boot (it
    doesn't
    > >display in the main window; I have to click Status Monitor and then it
    > >shows) ... but is a USB cable any better anyway ? it's not like it's a
    big
    > >investment ...
    >
    > There's little difference between the two because most printers are much
    > slower than USB or Parallel data transfer rates.
    >
    > Just use which ever is more convenient or practical in your setup.

    I guess what's practical is what's already in place; thanks for the useful
    info !
  6. Archived from groups: comp.periphs.printers (More info?)

    Ed Ruf wrote:
    > On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:23:04 GMT, in comp.periphs.printers "Liz"
    > <liz@tiredofspam.com> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> I have an Epson 1280 connected with a parallel cable; it works but
    >> is it worth using USB 2.0 instead ... It came to mind because my
    >> status monitor (up to date version) does not work and I thought it
    >> might be because of using the parallel cable
    >
    > I second what Bill said. Are you sure the 1280 supports USB 2.0? I
    > know my 1270 is only 1,1.
    > ________________________________________________________
    > Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
    > http://EdwardGRuf.com


    No it doesn't! It's too ancient! Anyway, the point is moot - no printer can
    take data fast enough for 1.1/2.0 to be an issue.
    --
    My great-grandfather was born and raised in Elgin - did he eventually
    lose his marbles?
Ask a new question

Read More

Printers USB Cable Peripherals