Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

USB printer to parallel port

  1. Dec 12, 2006 #1
    Hello all,
    Is there any cable out there that will allow me to hook up a USB printer to a parallel port on a computer? Problem is most printers these days are USB hookup and my older systems have parallel port hookups or USB 1.1. Or will the modern USB devices work on the USB 1.1 port I have? I know some will and some will not. It's just the printer I'm concerned about for now. BTW the printer is a Canon Pixma iP 1600. When I search on the web for info on it, it doesn't specify wether it will work on a USB 1.1 or not.
    Any info or suggesttions would be great.
    Thanx
    Jim
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 12, 2006 #2

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Printers are not usually high-bandwidth devices, and should work fine on USB 1.1.

    - Warren
     
  4. Dec 12, 2006 #3
    Ahhh...I see...It's the bandwidth.
    Thanx. I'm breathing a sigh of relief now.:approve:

    Jim
     
  5. Dec 12, 2006 #4

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It'll be noticeably slower in USB 1.1 than 2.0 (of course, if you never try both, you may not notice...), but if it becomes a problem you could always buy some USB 2.0 ports for the printer.
     
  6. Dec 12, 2006 #5
    Hey, Thanx for the replies. The puter is actually an older laptop and I'm having some trouble getting a USB cardbus card to work on the thing. But I do have 1 USB port and I'm sure given the age of the system that it is 1.1.
    BTW would 1.1 be that much slower than the parallel port? All my printers in the past used parallel ports anyway.

    Jim
     
  7. Dec 12, 2006 #6

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    USB 1.1 is much faster than the parallel port.

    - Warren
     
  8. Dec 14, 2006 #7
    Thanx for all your help:smile: Anyway I went and hooked up the new printer to the USB 1.1 port and it printed, but real slow. But I what I came to realize is that this is a new printer with 1200x4800 dpi capabilities and my legacy device laptop with 133mhz processor and 48 MB of ram just ain't cuttin it. It did print a spectacular photo though. Just took it's sweet ass time. Text prints fast though and that's what it'll be used for most anyway.
    Thanx again.
    Jim
     
  9. Dec 14, 2006 #8

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Honestly, I can't imagine that USB is the bottleneck when printing a photo. The printer probably takes five minutes to print a full-size photo, but it probably only took 30 seconds to send a full-resolution file over the USB. I don't know that buying a faster computer would make much of a difference here.

    - Warren
     
  10. Dec 14, 2006 #9
    Actually I think it's the time it takes to render the picture for printing, having a slow processor and only 48 MB of ram. I hooked the printer up to my faster system (also with USB 1.1) and it printed photos much faster. Actually this printer is a gift to my daughter. She has the exact same laptop as I do, and so I just wanted to make sure it worked OK on that system. It'll be OK I think. It's just for text mostly anyway. But yeah it does take forever to print HD pix, even after it spools to the printer.
    Jim
     
  11. Dec 14, 2006 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yeah, printing a single high resolution photo can take hundreds of megabytes of memory to render. If you don't have enough ram, it'll use the hard drive instead (you'll see/hear it thrashing) and that takes forever.

    But then transferring 100 megabytes over USB 1.1 will take about 90 seconds. When printing a photo, though, the printer probably takes long enough to print that it doesn't need to pause to cache the data.
     
  12. Dec 14, 2006 #11
    Yes with only 48MB of ram I'm sure it was cacheing off the HD, and couple that with a slow processor(133mhz) and........hmhmhmhmhmhmhmhm.
     
  13. Apr 23, 2007 #12
    The CPU and the quantity of RAM is the cause. USB 1.1 is fast enough even for high resolution pictures. The struggle is in you HDD because its space is used for compensating the lack of RAM. And I think you HDD is not a "High end" one.
    _____________________
    postcard printing or brochure printing
     
  14. Apr 24, 2007 #13
    Try using a linux live cd (like morphix, knoppix, or meppis) and see what happens when you try to print the photo. I bet it will print much faster.
     
  15. Apr 30, 2007 #14
    I have since upgraded to 256 mb ram and the time is much quicker. But still with only 300mhz it's a bit slower than my high end system. And yes the HDD is only a 5200 rpm EIDE.
     
  16. May 4, 2007 #15
    I'm using an Ubuntu Live CD on an ancient machine and things seems to go a little better and faster than the host Win 98 OS. Try it it's free.
    ____________________
    search engine placement
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: USB printer to parallel port
  1. USB Ports! (Replies: 4)

  2. Usb port (Replies: 1)

Loading...