LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing

I was wondering if there were any benefits I gain from using LPR print ports
instead of normal TCP/IP ports. I was told by a manufacturer rep that LPR
performs better. Is this the case? I would think that normal TCP/IP printing
in windows would be more reliable since you don't have to install any extra
services to use it.

The Standard TCP/IP Port supports either "RAW" (sometimes called port 9100)
protocol or LPR - you don't need to install any additional software.

When you create a Standard TCP/IP Port, it defaults to "RAW", but you change
this in the port's Properties to LPR.

I suspect that any difference in "performance" will be marginal, but by all
means try it out!

--
Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders

It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.



"Nathan Weldon" <nweldon@usaarchitects.com> wrote in message
news:en$pwv9sFHA.1444@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I was wondering if there were any benefits I gain from using LPR print
>ports instead of normal TCP/IP ports. I was told by a manufacturer rep that
>LPR performs better. Is this the case? I would think that normal TCP/IP
>printing in windows would be more reliable since you don't have to install
>any extra services to use it.
>

Okay, but you do have to install file and print services for unix to use LPR
don't you?
"Bruce Sanderson" <bsanders@junk.junk> wrote in message
news:ui9udhDtFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> The Standard TCP/IP Port supports either "RAW" (sometimes called port
> 9100) protocol or LPR - you don't need to install any additional software.
>
> When you create a Standard TCP/IP Port, it defaults to "RAW", but you
> change this in the port's Properties to LPR.
>
> I suspect that any difference in "performance" will be marginal, but by
> all means try it out!
>
> --
> Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
> http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders
>
> It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.
>
>
>
> "Nathan Weldon" <nweldon@usaarchitects.com> wrote in message
> news:en$pwv9sFHA.1444@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>I was wondering if there were any benefits I gain from using LPR print
>>ports instead of normal TCP/IP ports. I was told by a manufacturer rep
>>that LPR performs better. Is this the case? I would think that normal
>>TCP/IP printing in windows would be more reliable since you don't have to
>>install any extra services to use it.
>>
>
>

Nathan Weldon wrote:
> Okay, but you do have to install file and print services for unix to use LPR
> don't you?


Correct, you do have to install print services for UNIX to use LPR. We
used to use LPR across the board here intermixed with (wince) DLC
ports. We're strictly Standard TCP/IP ports now though. Won't ever go
back. Slightly easier to create than LPR's, a little bit more
configurability (RAW/9100 or LPR-based) and that has gotten me out of a
jam or two.

One thing to note though. I would not create a Standard TCP/IP port
for a printer that is not responding to pings yet. You could do this
with LPR. Sort of pre-create the port. But I find my ports are
unstable at best, and sometimes don't work at all if I create the port
before I can ping the printer. But other than that, I've had no
problems with Standard ports. Most of the major vendors in their
documentation are going to assume that's what you're using.

:Bazooka-Joe

Okay. Thanks for the advice.

Nate.
"Bazooka-Joe" <seth@poormanrich.com> wrote in message
news:1126202120.701177.230690@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nathan Weldon wrote:
>> Okay, but you do have to install file and print services for unix to use
>> LPR
>> don't you?
>
>
> Correct, you do have to install print services for UNIX to use LPR. We
> used to use LPR across the board here intermixed with (wince) DLC
> ports. We're strictly Standard TCP/IP ports now though. Won't ever go
> back. Slightly easier to create than LPR's, a little bit more
> configurability (RAW/9100 or LPR-based) and that has gotten me out of a
> jam or two.
>
> One thing to note though. I would not create a Standard TCP/IP port
> for a printer that is not responding to pings yet. You could do this
> with LPR. Sort of pre-create the port. But I find my ports are
> unstable at best, and sometimes don't work at all if I create the port
> before I can ping the printer. But other than that, I've had no
> problems with Standard ports. Most of the major vendors in their
> documentation are going to assume that's what you're using.
>
> :Bazooka-Joe
>

Depends on what you are trying to do. If you are attempting to RECEIVE a
print data stream from another computer (e.g. a UNIX computer) that is
sending using lpr, then, yes, you need to install Print Services for Unix.

However, if you are attempting to SEND print FROM a Windows 2000 or later
computer using LPR (to printer with a LAN adapter or to a print queue on a
UNIX computer), you DO NOT need to install Print Services for UNIX. The
Standard TCP/IP printer port can be configured to send print using the
lpr/lpd protocol.

In Printers and Faxes on the computer that has the Standard TCP/IP port
defined:

1. click File, Server Properties
2. select the Ports tab
3. select the Standard TCP/IP port you want to configure to send print via
lpr/lpd to the print device
4. click Configure Port
5. select the LPR radio button
6. key the Queue name (many print LAN adapters (e.g. HP JetDirects) accept
several Queue names including TEXT)

By default, when you add a new Standard TCP/IP printer port, it will be
configured to use the port 9100 protocol, not LPR. You have to open the
port's properties to change it to LPR.

I know this works becuase I've done it several times.

If you do install Print Services for Unix, then you have a choice - you can
create a "LPR" port or a "Standard TCP/IP port" and configure it as I've
described above.

With Windows NT 4, the only way to send print via LPR was to install the
Print Services for UNIX, but with Windows 2000 and later, this is not
necessary. The only real reason for installing Print Services for UNIX with
Windows 2000 or later is so that the LPD service is available and UNIX (or
other none Windows) computers can send print data streams to your print
server using the lpr/lpd protocol.

--
Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders

It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.



"Nathan Weldon" <nweldon@usaarchitects.com> wrote in message
news:e$DNEWHtFHA.3236@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Okay, but you do have to install file and print services for unix to use
> LPR don't you?
> "Bruce Sanderson" <bsanders@junk.junk> wrote in message
> news:ui9udhDtFHA.1028@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> The Standard TCP/IP Port supports either "RAW" (sometimes called port
>> 9100) protocol or LPR - you don't need to install any additional
>> software.
>>
>> When you create a Standard TCP/IP Port, it defaults to "RAW", but you
>> change this in the port's Properties to LPR.
>>
>> I suspect that any difference in "performance" will be marginal, but by
>> all means try it out!
>>
>> --
>> Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
>> http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders
>>
>> It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Nathan Weldon" <nweldon@usaarchitects.com> wrote in message
>> news:en$pwv9sFHA.1444@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>I was wondering if there were any benefits I gain from using LPR print
>>>ports instead of normal TCP/IP ports. I was told by a manufacturer rep
>>>that LPR performs better. Is this the case? I would think that normal
>>>TCP/IP printing in windows would be more reliable since you don't have to
>>>install any extra services to use it.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>