USB or parallel port, which should the printer use?

[*Vanguard*]

My printer is an HP DeskJet 970Cse. HP's article at
http://snurl.com/36mv notes the ideal bandwidth of the various
connection types used for printers which are: serial at 53 Kbps,
parallel at 360 Kbps, USB at 12 Mbps (for v1.1, xxx for v2.2), Ethernet
at 10 Mbps (although it could be 10/100/1000 Mbps). However, that's
only the speed for that connection medium. It doesn't say what is the
max data rate at which the printer itself will accept data. If, say,
the printer only accepts data at 100 kbps then the parallel port is more
than sufficient to handle the printer traffic load. How fast can the HP
970Cse accept data? HP's article a http://snurl.com/36mx doesn't
specify the max input data rate. If the printer can accept at a faster
rate then I would move it to the USB port. But there's no point in
polluting the USB with printer traffic if the parallel port is more than
sufficient to handle the printer traffic.

 

[ChrisJ9876]

From: "*Vanguard*" (e-mail address removed)

Date: 11/28/2003 8:28 PM Eastern Standard Time
Message-id: <LCSxb.345437$Fm2.349489@attbi_s04>

My printer is an HP DeskJet 970Cse. HP's article at
http://snurl.com/36mv notes the ideal bandwidth of the various
connection types used for printers which are: serial at 53 Kbps,
parallel at 360 Kbps, USB at 12 Mbps (for v1.1, xxx for v2.2), Ethernet
at 10 Mbps (although it could be 10/100/1000 Mbps). However, that's
only the speed for that connection medium. It doesn't say what is the
max data rate at which the printer itself will accept data. If, say,
the printer only accepts data at 100 kbps then the parallel port is more
than sufficient to handle the printer traffic load. How fast can the HP
970Cse accept data? HP's article a http://snurl.com/36mx doesn't
specify the max input data rate. If the printer can accept at a faster
rate then I would move it to the USB port. But there's no point in
polluting the USB with printer traffic if the parallel port is more than
sufficient to handle the printer traffic.

--

It really won't make any difference. Regardless of how fast the data transfer
happens, the printer still has to move the print head and move the paper. The
time it takes for that mechanical movement will pretty much wipe out any speed
advantage in terms of parallel vs. USB. In either case, the port is basically
waiting for the printer to do its mechanical thing.

 

[stacey]

But there's no point in
polluting the USB with printer traffic if the parallel port is more than
sufficient to handle the printer traffic.

You'll see no difference in performance. I don't use USB at all unless I
must.

 

[striker]

I had an Epson printer that would not work with USB so I went with parallel
port and it worked fine.

 

[Pen]

I use USB for my HP and find that when I get
printer errors they are easier to fix, just restart the printer,
versus the parallel hookup, requires a reboot.
Other than that, no difference.

I had an Epson printer that would not work with USB so I went with parallel
port and it worked fine.

 

[Alceryes]

It really won't make any difference. Regardless of how fast the data
transfer

happens, the printer still has to move the print head and move the paper. The
time it takes for that mechanical movement will pretty much wipe out any speed
advantage in terms of parallel vs. USB. In either case, the port is basically
waiting for the printer to do its mechanical thing.

What about the OS difference in accessing a slow legacy device? I have both
serial and parallel ports disabled in bios and ONLY use USB. Of course we're
splitting hairs here. If there is any speed gained it's only a blink or
two...;-)

 

[stacey]

What about the OS difference in accessing a slow legacy device? I have
both serial and parallel ports disabled in bios and ONLY use USB. Of
course we're splitting hairs here. If there is any speed gained it's only
a blink or two...;-)

Those "legacy" subsystems have a LOT less overhead than USB.