LJ4+ and JetAdmin problems

[Guest]

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

I've got an old LJ4+ which passes its self test.

I've put an old MIO card in it which I used to use in an LJ4M+.

I've tried to configure the required static IP address through the front
panel, but failed. I can change the address, but the new one doesn't
seem to be retained. Do I need to do something to save it explicitly ?


I also downloaded the JetAdmin software which seems to be a huge
package. This can find the printer if I tell it the MAC address. It
invites me to change the printers IP address, but when I do, it says the
update has failed.


Anybody know how I can set the IP address reliably, or if something here
might need firmware / flash update / be faulty etc ? This is hugely
frustrating !


Many thanks, J/.
--
John Beardmore

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:02:10 UTC, John Beardmore
<wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> I've got an old LJ4+ which passes its self test.
>
> I've put an old MIO card in it which I used to use in an LJ4M+.
>
> I've tried to configure the required static IP address through the front
> panel, but failed. I can change the address, but the new one doesn't
> seem to be retained. Do I need to do something to save it explicitly ?

After you've clicked round to the right number for each IP byte,
remember you have to press the Enter button (to get the asterisk beside
the value) before you go on to the next byte.
--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

 

[Guest]

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

In message <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-fBIBW0mbsI3t@rikki.tavi.co.uk>, Bob Eager
<rde42@spamcop.net> writes
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:02:10 UTC, John Beardmore
><wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> I've got an old LJ4+ which passes its self test.
>>
>> I've put an old MIO card in it which I used to use in an LJ4M+.
>>
>> I've tried to configure the required static IP address through the front
>> panel, but failed. I can change the address, but the new one doesn't
>> seem to be retained. Do I need to do something to save it explicitly ?
>
>After you've clicked round to the right number for each IP byte,
>remember you have to press the Enter button (to get the asterisk beside
>the value) before you go on to the next byte.

Yes. I tried that, but it didn't seem to help.

It started at 192.0.0.192. After a few attempts to set it with and
without '*', it set itself to 0.0.0.0 and gave an MIO error on power up,
and on self test identified a bad IP address.

I then did a cold reset after which it reverted to 192.0.0.192, then
attempts to change it with JetAdmin failed without explanation.

I'm out of ideas !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

 

[Guest]

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

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:33:04 UTC, John Beardmore
<wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> It started at 192.0.0.192. After a few attempts to set it with and
> without '*', it set itself to 0.0.0.0 and gave an MIO error on power up,
> and on self test identified a bad IP address.
>
> I then did a cold reset after which it reverted to 192.0.0.192, then
> attempts to change it with JetAdmin failed without explanation.

Sounds as if the MIO card is faulty. I've bought them on eBay for just a
few pounds; may be worth a look.

And try re-seating it /cleaning the contacts.
--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

 

[Guest]

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

In message <176uZD2KcidF-pn2-xopd1jVE8r2y@rikki.tavi.co.uk>, Bob Eager
<rde42@spamcop.net> writes
>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 23:33:04 UTC, John Beardmore
><wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> It started at 192.0.0.192. After a few attempts to set it with and
>> without '*', it set itself to 0.0.0.0 and gave an MIO error on power up,
>> and on self test identified a bad IP address.
>>
>> I then did a cold reset after which it reverted to 192.0.0.192, then
>> attempts to change it with JetAdmin failed without explanation.
>
>Sounds as if the MIO card is faulty. I've bought them on eBay for just a
>few pounds; may be worth a look.

Could be faulty. Does it have battery backed memory on it by any
chance ? Card must be best part of 8 years old by now I guess.


>And try re-seating it /cleaning the contacts.

Could do. The male part of the connector looks tricky to access though
and I have reseated it a couple of times.

If it's really dead I might just dig out an old parallel cable. Would
that be much slower than an 10 base-t MIO with PCL on an LJ4+ ?

(We do a fair bit of graphics intensive work, but PCL always seems to be
quicker than Postscript for that anyway.)


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

 

[Guest]

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

John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> If it's really dead I might just dig out an old parallel cable. Would
> that be much slower than an 10 base-t MIO with PCL on an LJ4+ ?

PCL or PostScript, the transfer speed is the same. The MIO cards are
not particularly quick, and there probably won't be a noticeable
speed difference between it and parallel.

> (We do a fair bit of graphics intensive work, but PCL always seems to be
> quicker than Postscript for that anyway.)

It depends. Most driver-generated PostScript is bulky and slow.
Hand-written PostScript can be far, far smaller than PCL bitmaps, and
print much more quickly.

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

 

[Guest]

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

In message <slrnd15ib9.o29.wblock@speedy.wonkity.com>, Warren Block
<wblock@wonkity.com> writes
>John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> If it's really dead I might just dig out an old parallel cable. Would
>> that be much slower than an 10 base-t MIO with PCL on an LJ4+ ?
>
>PCL or PostScript, the transfer speed is the same.

Yes, but postscript seems to send more data to deliver the same page
output.


> The MIO cards are
>not particularly quick,

Even the 100 base-t versions, though maybe it can also bottleneck
processing the postscript ?


> and there probably won't be a noticeable
>speed difference between it and parallel.

That's what I'm hoping.


>> (We do a fair bit of graphics intensive work, but PCL always seems to be
>> quicker than Postscript for that anyway.)
>
>It depends. Most driver-generated PostScript is bulky and slow.
>Hand-written PostScript can be far, far smaller than PCL bitmaps, and
>print much more quickly.

Yes. Having looked at postscript I've generated and 'MS-postscript' I
know what you mean !


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore

 

[Guest]

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

Have you tried cold reset - Hold down Go or Online (don't recall
exactly) while turning on power. If that doesn't work, I'd get the
latest firmware for the card and try again.

John Beardmore wrote:
> I've got an old LJ4+ which passes its self test.
>
> I've put an old MIO card in it which I used to use in an LJ4M+.
>
> I've tried to configure the required static IP address through the front
> panel, but failed. I can change the address, but the new one doesn't
> seem to be retained. Do I need to do something to save it explicitly ?
>
>
> I also downloaded the JetAdmin software which seems to be a huge
> package. This can find the printer if I tell it the MAC address. It
> invites me to change the printers IP address, but when I do, it says the
> update has failed.
>
>
> Anybody know how I can set the IP address reliably, or if something here
> might need firmware / flash update / be faulty etc ? This is hugely
> frustrating !
>
>
> Many thanks, J/.

 

[Guest]

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

John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <slrnd15ib9.o29.wblock@speedy.wonkity.com>,
> Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> writes
>
>> The MIO cards are not particularly quick,
>
> Even the 100 base-t versions, though maybe it can also bottleneck
> processing the postscript ?

I haven't done any serious benchmarks on the MIO JetDirects, but I'd be
very surprised if a 100-megabit version actually transferred data any
quicker than a 10-megabit version. The internal 8-bit transfer to the
printer is a limit. In practice, I haven't seen any speed difference
between MIO and external JetDirects.

--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA

 

[Guest]

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

In message <slrnd187sb.vrq.wblock@speedy.wonkity.com>, Warren Block
<wblock@wonkity.com> writes
>John Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <slrnd15ib9.o29.wblock@speedy.wonkity.com>,
>> Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> writes
>>
>>> The MIO cards are not particularly quick,
>>
>> Even the 100 base-t versions, though maybe it can also bottleneck
>> processing the postscript ?
>
>I haven't done any serious benchmarks on the MIO JetDirects, but I'd be
>very surprised if a 100-megabit version actually transferred data any
>quicker than a 10-megabit version.

When I was doing postscript with heavy graphics back in '89, the 100 meg
card was about 10% faster than the 10 meg card.


> The internal 8-bit transfer to the
>printer is a limit. In practice,

The speed of the interface matters as well as the width.

Are you saying the 8 bit interface is limited to the speed / timing of a
generic LPT / Centronics port ?

If not, think on the notion of 100 MHz ehternet being a 1 bit interface.


> I haven't seen any speed difference
>between MIO and external JetDirects.

Not as much as I was hoping in '89 I grant.


Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore