Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (
More info?)
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:%23l16hDJmFHA.708@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>
>>
>> 2. your print server doesn't have to be located physically near to the
>> printer.
>>
>
> There's not even any need for a print server. The printer can be added to
> each workstation as a "local" printer by the simple expedient of creating
> a standard TCP/IP port.
>
>
>> You will still need a print server.
>
>
> Not so.
>
>
>>You can set up pcs to print directly to it,
>
>
> Correct.
>
>
>> but you will get problems if more than one pc tries to print at the same
>> time.
>
>
> I've never seen any such problem, and I manage hundreds of PCs that print
> to dozens of printers, all via local TCP/IP ports.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
>
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH
I stand corrected. I still think a single print server is a better way to
go - at the very least it means you can see what is in the print queue.
Brian.