f



Re: Using both parallel & USB on same printer (Canon ip4000) Success!

Success!    I defined my Canon ip4000 twice -- once as a USB printer; and
once as an LPR printer that uses ethernet to a print server appliance to the
printer's parallel port.   It appears to work fine, with no conflicts.

The USB interface is considerably faster, AND it enables me to use the Canon
printer monitor software to monitor the ink supply.   The LPR interface
enables me to use the printer from any computer in the house, albeit without
the ink monitoring.

For the USB, I am using a 16-foot Belkin USB2 cable (gold contacts; 20-gauge
conductors) that I got from amazon.com for $7.95.   Because I was going for
a long cable, I thought I should buy a high quality cable in order to
maximize my chances of success.   It works fine with no problems.  [No, this
is not an ad.   I just thought that it might be a success factor].

If your print server appliance uses the printer's USB port, instead, you
might want to try the reverse:   i.e., connecting the printer's parallel
port to a computer's parallel port.  Make sure to use a bi-directional
parallel cable with all the pins wired.

  - David


"David D." <daviddiamond.remove-if-not-spam@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rZydnVp-X-wrd-bcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
>
> "Franzy" <franzy@non.existant> wrote in message
> news:417bc5d8$0$36860$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> >
> > Does not work for me either since I have a USB print server, so the
> > printer's USB port is already used. I had the server before I bought the
> > printer. I am thinking about selling the server and just connect the
> printer
> > to a computer again and share it. I have tested it and then you are able
> to
> > see the ink level and all the cool error messages like you forgot to
open
> > the output tray, again.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Frans  :-)
> >
>
> You could try the opposite.  Use the USB for your print server connection,
> and the parallel port to the nearest computer to check on the ink.
>
> I don't guarantee that it would work, but if you have a bi-directional
> parallel cable lying around, you could try it.
>
>


0
David
11/4/2004 8:36:53 AM
comp.periphs.printers 18139 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

5 Replies
628 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 31

David D. wrote:

> Success!    I defined my Canon ip4000 twice -- once as a USB printer; and
> once as an LPR printer that uses ethernet to a print server appliance to the
> printer's parallel port.   It appears to work fine, with no conflicts.
> 
> The USB interface is considerably faster, AND it enables me to use the Canon
> printer monitor software to monitor the ink supply.   The LPR interface
> enables me to use the printer from any computer in the house, albeit without
> the ink monitoring.
> 
>
etc.

You anticipated my question, is the USB connection noticeably faster 
than the parallel connection - I'd think either connection will supply 
data faster than the printer could use it. I went parallel only because 
the cable was already connected to the computer as a "left over" from my 
previous printer. I can easily reconnect to a USB port, though.
0
Dan
11/4/2004 2:03:51 PM
"Dan Wenz" <djwenz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:dOOdnRM3NZFXqxfcRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
> You anticipated my question, is the USB connection noticeably faster
> than the parallel connection - I'd think either connection will supply
> data faster than the printer could use it. I went parallel only because
> the cable was already connected to the computer as a "left over" from my
> previous printer. I can easily reconnect to a USB port, though.


Try hooking both up at the same time.   The parallel port connection and the
USB connections will then appear on your computer as two different printers.
(Name them so that you can tell which is which).

With stopwatch in hand, compare the print speed of the two paths.   Try a
variety of print sources -- photos, text, web, etc.

Please let us know what you find out.   It is fun for techies to debate the
pros and cons of different connection types, but only a live test will tell
for sure.   Unless you are loaded up with high-bandwidth USB devices, my
vote would be for a tie.

A network connection through a print server is a different matter.   You
have an extra hop and extra buffering, controls and handshakes.    A print
server appliance may be practically unbuffered, whereas a general
computer-based print server may be able to buffer well and offload the
client.   Print start-up delays are especially noticeable.

   - David



0
David
11/5/2004 3:14:41 AM
David D. wrote:
> Success!    I defined my Canon ip4000 twice -- once as a USB printer; and
> once as an LPR printer that uses ethernet to a print server appliance to the
> printer's parallel port.   It appears to work fine, with no conflicts.
> 
> The USB interface is considerably faster, AND it enables me to use the Canon
> printer monitor software to monitor the ink supply.   The LPR interface
> enables me to use the printer from any computer in the house, albeit without
> the ink monitoring.
> 
> For the USB, I am using a 16-foot Belkin USB2 cable (gold contacts; 20-gauge
> conductors) that I got from amazon.com for $7.95.   Because I was going for
> a long cable, I thought I should buy a high quality cable in order to
> maximize my chances of success.   It works fine with no problems.  [No, this
> is not an ad.   I just thought that it might be a success factor].
> 
> If your print server appliance uses the printer's USB port, instead, you
> might want to try the reverse:   i.e., connecting the printer's parallel
> port to a computer's parallel port.  Make sure to use a bi-directional
> parallel cable with all the pins wired.
> 
>   - David
> 
> 
> "David D." <daviddiamond.remove-if-not-spam@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:rZydnVp-X-wrd-bcRVn-oQ@comcast.com...
> 
>>"Franzy" <franzy@non.existant> wrote in message
>>news:417bc5d8$0$36860$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>>
>>>Does not work for me either since I have a USB print server, so the
>>>printer's USB port is already used. I had the server before I bought the
>>>printer. I am thinking about selling the server and just connect the
>>
>>printer
>>
>>>to a computer again and share it. I have tested it and then you are able
>>
>>to
>>
>>>see the ink level and all the cool error messages like you forgot to
> 
> open
> 
>>>the output tray, again.
>>>
>>>Thanks!
>>>Frans  :-)
>>>
>>
>>You could try the opposite.  Use the USB for your print server connection,
>>and the parallel port to the nearest computer to check on the ink.
>>
>>I don't guarantee that it would work, but if you have a bi-directional
>>parallel cable lying around, you could try it.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
This has been done before on other makes. The problem was the first 
computer to boot would take possession of the printer and not release 
it.  Do you have this problem? The speed difference between  USB versus 
parallel boils down to USB using less CPU loading. It allows you to do 
other things while printing at the same time while having less effect on 
the print speed. If printing is the only thing you are doing then the 
speed difference is less noticeable because it is the printer that is 
the bottle neck, not the connection type.
0
tomcas
11/5/2004 11:33:21 AM
"tomcas" <tomcas@mjwebsitedesign.com> wrote in message
news:5yJid.28485$fF6.7829523@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> This has been done before on other makes. The problem was the first
> computer to boot would take possession of the printer and not release
> it.  Do you have this problem?  [...]
>

I have not experienced any conflicts.   The first "computer" to boot is my
print server appliance on the printer's parallel port.   All of the
computers in my house can talk to the print server.   Additionally, one
computer also is hooked up to the USB.   That computer can print either
through the LPR or through the USB.   I have tried to set up conflict
situations, even using both ports at once from the same computer, but the
printer handles it ok.

  - David




0
David
11/6/2004 3:27:13 PM
David D. wrote:


>
> Please let us know what you find out.   It is fun for techies to debate the
> pros and cons of different connection types, but only a live test will tell
> for sure.   Unless you are loaded up with high-bandwidth USB devices, my
> vote would be for a tie.
> 
etc.

Thanks to all for your replies - I'm going to stick with the parallel 
connection for the time being, there's other "stuff" I want to hookup to 
remaining usb ports.
0
Dan
11/6/2004 4:40:32 PM
Reply: