If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
Obsolescence of the parallel port is a mindset of the computer industry, not me.
But I did not make that clear, did I? Every year, there are more and more "legacy-free" computers which lack parallel, serial, and PS/2 ports, and have no floppy drives. Still, driving any sort of parallel device with a PCI-Express is a waste of bandwidth because the parallel port hardware is a very small bottlenect compared to PCI-E. This is true no matter what the expense of the parallel port printer. Far better to simply get a PCI (not -Express) parallel card and get on with it. Taking a cue from the legacy-free part of the computer biz, expensive bar code and label printers are now more and more USB or sometimes are BOTH USB and parallel with connectors for both... Ben Myers On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:21:15 -0700, "nobody " wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Exactly my point! A parallel port, even the newest and fastest bi-directional one, uses a teeny tiny part of the bandwidth of PCI, let alone PCI-Express. A PCI-Express parallel card instead of a PCI parallel card who have about zero effect on the overall speed of printing. The data transmission to the printer is still very much limited by the parallel port. So why even sell a PCI-Express parallel card? It is a waste of bandwidth and a potentially valuable slot to drive a now-obsolete device. You are assuming that all printers are $49 specials at Staples. What about the person who has a specialized barcode or label printer that only has a parallel interface? Those tend to be pricey and often proprietary to some business software/hardware packages. Obsolescence is a relative term. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
I'm have to beat this one to death.
"The maximum data transfer rate achievable with this (parallel port) architecture is around 150 kilobytes per second and is extremely software intensive." A 1x PCI-Express slot has a transfer rate of 250 MEGAbytes per second, or about 1600 times faster than a parallel port. Tell me how ANY parallel port device, no matter how expensive or exotic, can take advantage of a PCI-Express connection to the motherboard/system? .... Ben Myers On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 19:21:15 -0700, "nobody " wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Exactly my point! A parallel port, even the newest and fastest bi-directional one, uses a teeny tiny part of the bandwidth of PCI, let alone PCI-Express. A PCI-Express parallel card instead of a PCI parallel card who have about zero effect on the overall speed of printing. The data transmission to the printer is still very much limited by the parallel port. So why even sell a PCI-Express parallel card? It is a waste of bandwidth and a potentially valuable slot to drive a now-obsolete device. You are assuming that all printers are $49 specials at Staples. What about the person who has a specialized barcode or label printer that only has a parallel interface? Those tend to be pricey and often proprietary to some business software/hardware packages. Obsolescence is a relative term. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
Michael Johnson wrote:
nobody wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Exactly my point! A parallel port, even the newest and fastest bi-directional one, uses a teeny tiny part of the bandwidth of PCI, let alone PCI-Express. A PCI-Express parallel card instead of a PCI parallel card who have about zero effect on the overall speed of printing. The data transmission to the printer is still very much limited by the parallel port. So why even sell a PCI-Express parallel card? It is a waste of bandwidth and a potentially valuable slot to drive a now-obsolete device. You are assuming that all printers are $49 specials at Staples. What about the person who has a specialized barcode or label printer that only has a parallel interface? Those tend to be pricey and often proprietary to some business software/hardware packages. Obsolescence is a relative term. How much data is transfered reading a bar code or to print a label? I have a plotter that has a parallel interface and sending an average 24"x36" CAD drawing to it takes maybe 15-30 seconds. I don't see that a barcode or label gets anywhere close to that amount of data. Even considering your comment, I still don't see where an older parallel port device could take advantage of the increased speed of this card. It's not the bandwidth of the card at issue, it's getting a working parallel port for what you have for a printer when there isn't one on the new 'puter. If it takes a PCI-X card to do it, so be it. How many people are going to use every slot on the mobo? By your reasoning, we shouldn't be using USB keyboards either. They don't use more than 5% of the bandwidth on even a USB 1.1 port. I'll admit that I try to use the old PS2 ports (if available) for the mouse and keyboard to leave more USB ports available. I've got a double handful of USB to PS2 adapters left over from work. A surprising amount of USB KBs and mice that don't say 'PS2 Compatible' do work with the adapter. If it doesn't, no damage; just use up one of your USB ports instead |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
nobody wrote:
Michael Johnson wrote: nobody wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Exactly my point! A parallel port, even the newest and fastest bi-directional one, uses a teeny tiny part of the bandwidth of PCI, let alone PCI-Express. A PCI-Express parallel card instead of a PCI parallel card who have about zero effect on the overall speed of printing. The data transmission to the printer is still very much limited by the parallel port. So why even sell a PCI-Express parallel card? It is a waste of bandwidth and a potentially valuable slot to drive a now-obsolete device. You are assuming that all printers are $49 specials at Staples. What about the person who has a specialized barcode or label printer that only has a parallel interface? Those tend to be pricey and often proprietary to some business software/hardware packages. Obsolescence is a relative term. How much data is transfered reading a bar code or to print a label? I have a plotter that has a parallel interface and sending an average 24"x36" CAD drawing to it takes maybe 15-30 seconds. I don't see that a barcode or label gets anywhere close to that amount of data. Even considering your comment, I still don't see where an older parallel port device could take advantage of the increased speed of this card. It's not the bandwidth of the card at issue, it's getting a working parallel port for what you have for a printer when there isn't one on the new 'puter. If it takes a PCI-X card to do it, so be it. How many people are going to use every slot on the mobo? I don't see where buying an $80 PCI-X parallel card makes any economical sense when PCI versions are sold for less than $10. Other than the rare instance that all the normal PCI slots are full what practical use is the high aspect of this card? It is like putting 200 mph speed rated tires on a Yugo. By your reasoning, we shouldn't be using USB keyboards either. They don't use more than 5% of the bandwidth on even a USB 1.1 port. I'll admit that I try to use the old PS2 ports (if available) for the mouse and keyboard to leave more USB ports available. I've got a double handful of USB to PS2 adapters left over from work. A surprising amount of USB KBs and mice that don't say 'PS2 Compatible' do work with the adapter. If it doesn't, no damage; just use up one of your USB ports instead This isn't my reasoning it is yours and it is flawed because there are devices that use the full bandwidth of USB 2.0 or 1.1 ports and devices that use just a fraction of it. Parallel ports are slow, period. There are no older parallel devices I know of that can use the claimed triple speed of this card. If there are such devices they must be very rare. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
Michael Johnson wrote:
nobody wrote: Michael Johnson wrote: nobody wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Exactly my point! A parallel port, even the newest and fastest bi-directional one, uses a teeny tiny part of the bandwidth of PCI, let alone PCI-Express. A PCI-Express parallel card instead of a PCI parallel card who have about zero effect on the overall speed of printing. The data transmission to the printer is still very much limited by the parallel port. So why even sell a PCI-Express parallel card? It is a waste of bandwidth and a potentially valuable slot to drive a now-obsolete device. You are assuming that all printers are $49 specials at Staples. What about the person who has a specialized barcode or label printer that only has a parallel interface? Those tend to be pricey and often proprietary to some business software/hardware packages. Obsolescence is a relative term. How much data is transfered reading a bar code or to print a label? I have a plotter that has a parallel interface and sending an average 24"x36" CAD drawing to it takes maybe 15-30 seconds. I don't see that a barcode or label gets anywhere close to that amount of data. Even considering your comment, I still don't see where an older parallel port device could take advantage of the increased speed of this card. It's not the bandwidth of the card at issue, it's getting a working parallel port for what you have for a printer when there isn't one on the new 'puter. If it takes a PCI-X card to do it, so be it. How many people are going to use every slot on the mobo? I don't see where buying an $80 PCI-X parallel card makes any economical sense when PCI versions are sold for less than $10. Other than the rare instance that all the normal PCI slots are full what practical use is the high aspect of this card? It is like putting 200 mph speed rated tires on a Yugo. By your reasoning, we shouldn't be using USB keyboards either. They don't use more than 5% of the bandwidth on even a USB 1.1 port. I'll admit that I try to use the old PS2 ports (if available) for the mouse and keyboard to leave more USB ports available. I've got a double handful of USB to PS2 adapters left over from work. A surprising amount of USB KBs and mice that don't say 'PS2 Compatible' do work with the adapter. If it doesn't, no damage; just use up one of your USB ports instead This isn't my reasoning it is yours and it is flawed because there are devices that use the full bandwidth of USB 2.0 or 1.1 ports and devices that use just a fraction of it. Parallel ports are slow, period. There are no older parallel devices I know of that can use the claimed triple speed of this card. If there are such devices they must be very rare. My point is *still* that if you *need* a parallel port and the only available slot is a PCI-X version, you use it. Bandwidth be damned! By that reason again, bicyles should be banned because they put down such a small footprint on the asphalt compared to an 18wheeler. As for devices that can exceed the 150kb/s 'standard' parallel rate, think ECC/ECP capable tape drives, Zip and LS120 drives and 2X CDR (on up) burners (all external parallel). Years ago I did the math and found speeds up to 300kb/s when the data was streaming solidly. (and yes, that was running a Colorado 250 backup with compression turned off to get real results.) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:06:09 -0700, "nobody " wrote:
YOU can spend the money on an extra expensive PCI-E parallel port card. I'll spend the money on an inexpensive PCI parallel port card. In the foreseeable future, I'll probably find more free PCI slots in computers than PCI-E slots. This is an interesting defense of the parallel port with all the bidirectional kludge devices that were sold in the mid-90s. Every one of them was a horrific kludge that managed to work OK if it was the only device attached to the parallel port. But try to daisy-chain TWO devices to a parallel port, as some manufacturers claimed was possible, and, more often than not, one or the other device would stop working. I have no problem with parallel ports and parallel port printers, for which Wang originally engineered the port. But, let's be honest here. The disasters with all these other devices is what gave stimulus to the industry committee that worked out the design for USB. I don't understand why one would go hog wild in defense of the parallel port, unless one was either one of its inventors or if one is a troll. And I agree with you 100%! Let's ban bicycles and all drive 18-wheelers. Great idea! ... Ben Myers SNIP My point is *still* that if you *need* a parallel port and the only available slot is a PCI-X version, you use it. Bandwidth be damned! By that reason again, bicyles should be banned because they put down such a small footprint on the asphalt compared to an 18wheeler. As for devices that can exceed the 150kb/s 'standard' parallel rate, think ECC/ECP capable tape drives, Zip and LS120 drives and 2X CDR (on up) burners (all external parallel). Years ago I did the math and found speeds up to 300kb/s when the data was streaming solidly. (and yes, that was running a Colorado 250 backup with compression turned off to get real results.) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
nobody wrote:
Michael Johnson wrote: nobody wrote: Michael Johnson wrote: nobody wrote: Ben Myers wrote: Exactly my point! A parallel port, even the newest and fastest bi-directional one, uses a teeny tiny part of the bandwidth of PCI, let alone PCI-Express. A PCI-Express parallel card instead of a PCI parallel card who have about zero effect on the overall speed of printing. The data transmission to the printer is still very much limited by the parallel port. So why even sell a PCI-Express parallel card? It is a waste of bandwidth and a potentially valuable slot to drive a now-obsolete device. You are assuming that all printers are $49 specials at Staples. What about the person who has a specialized barcode or label printer that only has a parallel interface? Those tend to be pricey and often proprietary to some business software/hardware packages. Obsolescence is a relative term. How much data is transfered reading a bar code or to print a label? I have a plotter that has a parallel interface and sending an average 24"x36" CAD drawing to it takes maybe 15-30 seconds. I don't see that a barcode or label gets anywhere close to that amount of data. Even considering your comment, I still don't see where an older parallel port device could take advantage of the increased speed of this card. It's not the bandwidth of the card at issue, it's getting a working parallel port for what you have for a printer when there isn't one on the new 'puter. If it takes a PCI-X card to do it, so be it. How many people are going to use every slot on the mobo? I don't see where buying an $80 PCI-X parallel card makes any economical sense when PCI versions are sold for less than $10. Other than the rare instance that all the normal PCI slots are full what practical use is the high aspect of this card? It is like putting 200 mph speed rated tires on a Yugo. By your reasoning, we shouldn't be using USB keyboards either. They don't use more than 5% of the bandwidth on even a USB 1.1 port. I'll admit that I try to use the old PS2 ports (if available) for the mouse and keyboard to leave more USB ports available. I've got a double handful of USB to PS2 adapters left over from work. A surprising amount of USB KBs and mice that don't say 'PS2 Compatible' do work with the adapter. If it doesn't, no damage; just use up one of your USB ports instead This isn't my reasoning it is yours and it is flawed because there are devices that use the full bandwidth of USB 2.0 or 1.1 ports and devices that use just a fraction of it. Parallel ports are slow, period. There are no older parallel devices I know of that can use the claimed triple speed of this card. If there are such devices they must be very rare. My point is *still* that if you *need* a parallel port and the only available slot is a PCI-X version, you use it. Bandwidth be damned! By that reason again, bicyles should be banned because they put down such a small footprint on the asphalt compared to an 18wheeler. I am not saying this at all. This is your analogy. I have a PCI parallel card in one of my computers. None of my devices could use the added bandwidth of that PCIe card. If I didn't have a PCI slot I would buy a USB to parallel converter as they are far less expensive than the $80 for this device. As for devices that can exceed the 150kb/s 'standard' parallel rate, think ECC/ECP capable tape drives, Zip and LS120 drives and 2X CDR (on up) burners (all external parallel). Years ago I did the math and found speeds up to 300kb/s when the data was streaming solidly. (and yes, that was running a Colorado 250 backup with compression turned off to get real results.) The cheap cards are capable of ECC/ECP transfer. Like I said, I know of no parallel devices that can utilize 3X the speed of a standard ECC/ECP parallel port device. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
Ben Myers wrote:
On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 21:06:09 -0700, "nobody " wrote: YOU can spend the money on an extra expensive PCI-E parallel port card. I'll spend the money on an inexpensive PCI parallel port card. In the foreseeable future, I'll probably find more free PCI slots in computers than PCI-E slots. Reread my posts. I've been under the assumption that the OP only had a PCI-X(or E) slot available. If a plain old vanilla PCI slot is available, go for the PCI parallel card. This is an interesting defense of the parallel port with all the bidirectional kludge devices that were sold in the mid-90s. Every one of them was a horrific kludge that managed to work OK if it was the only device attached to the parallel port. But try to daisy-chain TWO devices to a parallel port, as some manufacturers claimed was possible, and, more often than not, one or the other device would stop working. Been dere, dun dat! I have no problem with parallel ports and parallel port printers, for which Wang originally engineered the port. But, let's be honest here. The disasters with all these other devices is what gave stimulus to the industry committee that worked out the design for USB. The M$ interpretation of USB printers hasn't lived up to the promises though. I've had 98SE and XP both "lose" USB printers far more often that parallel printers. Case in point: I had an old workhorse HP Deskjet 970 attached to this computer (and the two previous ones). It has both USB and parallel interfaces. 98SE would constantly lose the 970 on USB and would need a USB unplug/replug to work again on the first two computers. I upgraded puter #2 to XP, same thing. Present puter#3 was XP from the start. Still kept losing the 970. I went back to parallel on all three computers for this printer and it worked fine every time. There's an HP 1315 PSC USB on #3 now, wife wanted a copymachine and scanner. XP has lost it twice in the last 6 months. Both times it took a USB unplug/replug to resume operation. I don't understand why one would go hog wild in defense of the parallel port, unless one was either one of its inventors or if one is a troll. I'm not defending the parallel port, just defending the use of a perfectly good parallel printer. The 970 was free, was sitting in a box in a dusty closet at a local garage ('Here, take this, I'm tired of moving it' deal). It has huge ink tanks that refill easily, so operating costs are low. And I agree with you 100%! Let's ban bicycles and all drive 18-wheelers. Great idea! ... Ben Myers SNIP My point is *still* that if you *need* a parallel port and the only available slot is a PCI-X version, you use it. Bandwidth be damned! By that reason again, bicyles should be banned because they put down such a small footprint on the asphalt compared to an 18wheeler. As for devices that can exceed the 150kb/s 'standard' parallel rate, think ECC/ECP capable tape drives, Zip and LS120 drives and 2X CDR (on up) burners (all external parallel). Years ago I did the math and found speeds up to 300kb/s when the data was streaming solidly. (and yes, that was running a Colorado 250 backup with compression turned off to get real results.) |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
Michael Johnson wrote:
I am not saying this at all. This is your analogy. I have a PCI parallel card in one of my computers. None of my devices could use the added bandwidth of that PCIe card. If I didn't have a PCI slot I would buy a USB to parallel converter as they are far less expensive than the $80 for this device. From personal experience, your mileage may vary greatly as far as the USB parallel converters. There's been a few threads here on that. I've been burnt twice on those. I'm the "family IT Guy". Using a vanilla PCI parallel or even a pricey $80 PCI-e card works if it saves me a round trip of 200+ miles to redo a job that requires opening the case. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Problems connecting an old HP LaserJet 2100 to an XP Pro machine
"Henry Ross" wrote in message
... A colleague has just bought a new computer and is struggling to connect his LaserJet 2100pcl6 (yes, I know it's old!). Because it only connects via an LPT cable and the new machine doesn't have an LPT port, he's got hold of an LPT-USB adaptor and plugged it into his USB port. Windows XP Pro SP2 recognises it and prints a test page, but it won't print anything else (such as a Word document). Under the properties he's selected the USB port, and the print processor shows "WinPrint" and RAW data type. Can anyone suggest what else he might be able to do to get this bloody thing working, or is he going to have to buy a new printer? Many thanks. TrentSC I've experienced a similar problem with a LJ4200. I solved it by using the PCL5e drivers instead of the PCL6 (but don't ask me why that worked ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anyone running a 802.11g PCI/USB adapter in their P2B machine W/XP Pro SP2 connecting to WRT54G router? | No Way | Asus Motherboards | 8 | February 2nd 07 05:31 PM |
HP LaserJet 2100 bottom first??? | FireGeek822 | Printers | 4 | March 3rd 06 10:47 PM |
Hp Laserjet 2100 hardware issue | Klaus Pieper | Printers | 3 | March 19th 05 08:52 PM |
HP LaserJet 2100 | jimmygee1245 | Printers | 0 | February 9th 05 08:18 PM |
HP LaserJet 2100: Too large margins! | Roman Cwienk | Printers | 0 | January 21st 05 03:40 PM |