Can a USB Printer Be Connected to a Parallel Port on an Older Computer?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jmnew51
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Parallel Usb
AI Thread Summary
A user inquired about connecting a USB printer, specifically a Canon Pixma iP 1600, to a computer with only a parallel port and USB 1.1. It was confirmed that USB printers typically work with USB 1.1, although performance may be slower compared to USB 2.0. The user successfully connected the printer but experienced slow printing speeds, particularly for high-resolution photos, due to the limitations of their older laptop, which has a 133 MHz processor and 48 MB of RAM. Discussions highlighted that the bottleneck in printing speed was likely the laptop's hardware rather than the USB connection itself. Upgrading RAM improved performance, and using a Linux Live CD was suggested as a potential solution for better printing speeds. Overall, while USB 1.1 can handle printing tasks, the computer's processing power and memory are critical factors in print speed, especially for high-resolution images.
jmnew51
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
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
 
Computer science news on Phys.org
Printers are not usually high-bandwidth devices, and should work fine on USB 1.1.

- Warren
 
Ahhh...I see...It's the bandwidth.
Thanx. I'm breathing a sigh of relief now.:approve:

Jim
 
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.
 
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
 
USB 1.1 is much faster than the parallel port.

- Warren
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
  • #10
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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
_____________________
http://www.My1Stop.com/postcardContents.aspx"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
____________________
http://www.gomvents.com/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Connecting USB devices in parallel
Replies
2
Views
8K
Requesting suggestions for languages, libraries, and architectures for parallel (and sometimes non parallel) numerical and scientific computations
Replies
8
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top