LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing

Discussion in 'Microsoft Windows 2000 Printing' started by Nathan Weldon, Sep 7, 2005.

  1. 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, Sep 7, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:en$...
    >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.
    >
     
    Bruce Sanderson, Sep 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Okay, but you do have to install file and print services for unix to use LPR
    don't you?
    "Bruce Sanderson" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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" <> wrote in message
    > news:en$...
    >>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, Sep 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Nathan Weldon

    Bazooka-Joe Guest

    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
     
    Bazooka-Joe, Sep 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Okay. Thanks for the advice.

    Nate.
    "Bazooka-Joe" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > 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
    >
     
    Nathan Weldon, Sep 8, 2005
    #5
  6. 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" <> wrote in message
    news:e$...
    > Okay, but you do have to install file and print services for unix to use
    > LPR don't you?
    > "Bruce Sanderson" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> The Standard TCP/IP Port supports either "RAW" (sometimes called port
    >> 9100) protocol or LPR - you don't need to install any additional
    >> software.
    >>
    >> When you create a Standard TCP/IP Port, it defaults to "RAW", but you
    >> change this in the port's Properties to LPR.
    >>
    >> I suspect that any difference in "performance" will be marginal, but by
    >> all means try it out!
    >>
    >> --
    >> Bruce Sanderson MVP Printing
    >> http://members.shaw.ca/bsanders
    >>
    >> It is perfectly useless to know the right answer to the wrong question.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Nathan Weldon" <> wrote in message
    >> news:en$...
    >>>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.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Bruce Sanderson, Sep 13, 2005
    #6
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Gokhan

    LPR Printing

    Gokhan, Aug 3, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Windows 2000 Printing
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    678
    Gokhan
    Aug 3, 2003
  2. Graham Turner

    standard tcp/ip printer port vs lpr ports

    Graham Turner, Sep 4, 2003, in forum: Microsoft Windows 2000 Printing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    7,862
    Graham Turner
    Sep 7, 2003
  3. Rich

    LPR vs. TCP/IP

    Rich, Apr 16, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Windows 2000 Printing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    461
  4. Tracey

    std tcp/ip verses hp std tcp/ip printer port

    Tracey, Jul 1, 2004, in forum: Microsoft Windows 2000 Printing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,083
  5. James Turner

    LPR or RAW TCP/IP Port - Bandwidth???

    James Turner, Feb 8, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Windows 2000 Printing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,732
    Bruce Sanderson
    Feb 10, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page