Wireless networking laser printer - Parallel or USB?

Hello friends,

I am not a computer geek and I have a question on wirelessly
networking a laser printer. I run a Microsoft Base Station (MN-500)
based wireless network setup at home, connecting 3 computers. I am
thinking of buying a new laser printer (Brother HL-5140; has
parrallel, USB and ethernet ports) and the local Office Depot sells a
couple of wireless print servers and I am trying to figure out which
one suits me.

The available wirelss print servers are:

1) A compact "D-link" one that attaches to the PARALLEL PORT of
the printer. Sale price, $45

2) A "D-link" one that attaches to the printer via its USB 1.1
port,
priced $59 (not very sure)

3) A "Linksys" one that attaches to the printer via its USB 2.0
port,
priced $149.

The sales person tells me that #1 is as fast as the #2 one and I find
it hard to believe that the parrallel version can be as fast as the
USB 1.1 version. Of course, the #3 would probably the best. I would
like my three networked computers to be able to print wirelessly, the
print volumes are not very much, may be about 500 pages a month,
except in spurts about 8000/month about 5 times a year.

I am not well-versed with any of the above, not even with the
technologies, and I would like some information on the pros and cons
of using any of these technologies especially their reliabilities and
print speed.

Thanks very much in advance.

Rolands Aravindan

Aravind wrote:

1) A compact "D-link" one that attaches to the PARALLEL PORT of
the printer. Sale price, $45

2) A "D-link" one that attaches to the printer via its USB 1.1 port,
priced $59 (not very sure)

3) A "Linksys" one that attaches to the printer via its USB 2.0 port,
priced $149.

The sales person tells me that #1 is as fast as the #2 one and I find
it hard to believe that the parrallel version can be as fast as the
USB 1.1 version. Of course, the #3 would probably the best. I would
like my three networked computers to be able to print wirelessly, the
print volumes are not very much, may be about 500 pages a month,
except in spurts about 8000/month about 5 times a year.

According to a bit of Google-searching, a typical EPP connection runs
around 500 kilobyte/s to 2.0 megabyte/s; USB 1.1 runs about 1.5
megabyte/s. Thus, the parallel version likely is nearly as fast as the
USB 1.1 version.

Whether a USB 2.0 connection will result in notably faster printing
depends mostly on what you're printing and what sort of printer you
have. If your pages are mostly text, the limit on the speed is likely
to be the printer's page-printing rate, not the data-transfer rate (even
if you use the parallel port). Thus, a faster data-transfer rate would
get you nothing.

On the other hand, if you have mostly graphical pages that take a couple
of minutes to print out when the printer is connected via the parallel
port, then it may be worth it to use a USB 2.0 connection. (Or it may
not; the printer may be spending the two minutes processing the incoming
data.)

The best way to figure this out is by testing, not listening to my
guesses. Hook up your printer to one of your computers via a parallel
cable, and print one of your more complicated documents, and time how
long it takes. Then hook up the printer to a USB 2.0 port, and print
the same document again, and compare times.

(Also worth considering is the speed of your wireless connection -- is
it notably faster than a USB 1.1 or parallel connection? If not, the
extra speed of the USB 2.0 port isn't going to mean anything.)

Basically, I think it comes down to two simple questions:

1) Is the extra speed of a USB 2.0 connection -- extra speed that you've
tested and measured with direct cable connections, not that's merely
"theoretically" there -- worth $100 to you?

2) Does your current printer have both a parallel and a USB connection,
and do you think that will continue to be the case for the expected time
you'd like to be using this print server?


- Brooks


--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.

I would recommend a wireless brigde and go with the ethernet
connection for the printer. http://www.dlink.com/products/?pid=241


aravind_rolands (AT) yahoo (DOT) com (Aravind) wrote in message news:<c47d1fd8.0411160730.1cc9649d (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>...

Hello friends,

I am not a computer geek and I have a question on wirelessly
networking a laser printer. I run a Microsoft Base Station (MN-500)
based wireless network setup at home, connecting 3 computers. I am
thinking of buying a new laser printer (Brother HL-5140; has
parrallel, USB and ethernet ports) and the local Office Depot sells a
couple of wireless print servers and I am trying to figure out which
one suits me.

The available wirelss print servers are:

1) A compact "D-link" one that attaches to the PARALLEL PORT of
the printer. Sale price, $45

2) A "D-link" one that attaches to the printer via its USB 1.1
port,
priced $59 (not very sure)

3) A "Linksys" one that attaches to the printer via its USB 2.0
port,
priced $149.

The sales person tells me that #1 is as fast as the #2 one and I find
it hard to believe that the parrallel version can be as fast as the
USB 1.1 version. Of course, the #3 would probably the best. I would
like my three networked computers to be able to print wirelessly, the
print volumes are not very much, may be about 500 pages a month,
except in spurts about 8000/month about 5 times a year.

I am not well-versed with any of the above, not even with the
technologies, and I would like some information on the pros and cons
of using any of these technologies especially their reliabilities and
print speed.

Thanks very much in advance.

Rolands Aravindan

Brooks Moses <bmoses-nospam (AT) cits1 (DOT) stanford.edu> wrote




Thanks a lot for your thoughts and the info!

If your pages are mostly text, the limit on the speed is likely
to be the printer's page-printing rate, not the data-transfer rate (even
if you use the parallel port). Thus, a faster data-transfer rate would
get you nothing.

On the other hand, if you have mostly graphical pages that take a couple
of minutes to print out when the printer is connected via the parallel
port, then it may be worth it to use a USB 2.0 connection. (Or it may
not; the printer may be spending the two minutes processing the incoming
data.)

Hook up your printer to one of your computers via a parallel
cable, and print one of your more complicated documents, and time how
long it takes. Then hook up the printer to a USB 2.0 port, and print
the same document again, and compare times.

Point taken, thanks. My docs are a little complex, most PageMaker
Files with graphics. So I guess the USB 2.0 may be a of greater help
compared to the others. But as you say, testing the performances would
tell me for sure. I guess I might go ahead and do just that even if it
means buying both the wireless devices (the USB 2.0 and parallel
wireless print servers) and returning one after the test.

(Also worth considering is the speed of your wireless connection -- is
it notably faster than a USB 1.1 or parallel connection? If not, the
extra speed of the USB 2.0 port isn't going to mean anything.)

The wireless connection is 802.11b, if I got the numbers right, which
means that it is capable of 11 MB/sec and so it is approx 10x faster
than the parallel and the USB 1.1 devices' capabilities. My
understanding is that the USB 2.0 is capable of some 400 MB/sec (or is
it firewire?) and may actually be a overkill.

2) Does your current printer have both a parallel and a USB connection,
and do you think that will continue to be the case for the expected time
you'd like to be using this print server?

Thats a tough one, wouldn't really know at this point. Actually, I am
yet to buy the printer itself (plan on buying it on Sat from Office
Depot when the sale ends)

Thanks for comprehensively addressing my question. You basically
covered all the bases, thanks again.

Aravind

Brooks Moses <bmoses-nospam (AT) cits1 (DOT) stanford.edu> wrote

According to a bit of Google-searching, a typical EPP connection runs
around 500 kilobyte/s to 2.0 megabyte/s; USB 1.1 runs about 1.5
megabyte/s. Thus, the parallel version likely is nearly as fast as the
USB 1.1 version.

Brooks, the one thing that intrigued me was the assertion by an
seemingly knowledgable (appeared to be a geekish young guy) sales rep
at the local Office Depot that the parallel port interfaced wireless
print server is as fast as the USB 2.0 interface due to "accellerated
technology" of the parallel interface "these days". I can't believe
that it could be correct and your answer suggests it too. Do you think
that there is any truth to there being something to higher speeds of
parallel ports when interfaced wirelessly? (That seemed to be his
point and he did sounded like he knew it to be a fact).

Thanks for all your help.

Aravind

The wireless connection is 802.11b, if I got the numbers right, which
means that it is capable of 11 MB/sec and so it is approx 10x faster
than the parallel and the USB 1.1 devices' capabilities. My
understanding is that the USB 2.0 is capable of some 400 MB/sec (or is
it firewire?) and may actually be a overkill.

Network and serial links are rated in BITS per second, NOT bytes.
802.11b is 11 Mb: mega-BITS per second.
Divide by 8 for 1.375 megaBytes per second.
802.11g is 54 Mb

All this ought to be on sale the Friday after Thanksgiving:
check Staples, Office Depot, etc. for one day sales on that stuff.

USB is universal SERIAL bus, also rated in megaBITS per second.
USB 1.1 is 12 mega-bits per second.
USB 2.0 is 480 mega-bits per second.

I'm not convinced that USB would do any better than a parallel port.

Aravind wrote:

Brooks, the one thing that intrigued me was the assertion by an
seemingly knowledgable (appeared to be a geekish young guy) sales rep
at the local Office Depot that the parallel port interfaced wireless
print server is as fast as the USB 2.0 interface due to "accellerated
technology" of the parallel interface "these days". I can't believe
that it could be correct and your answer suggests it too. Do you think
that there is any truth to there being something to higher speeds of
parallel ports when interfaced wirelessly? (That seemed to be his
point and he did sounded like he knew it to be a fact).

There has been an increase in the speeds of parallel ports since the
early versions, but I think everything has been using the enhanced
version for something like a decade, if not longer. Nothing's changed
since then that I know of, and interfacing the parallel port wirelessly
certainly won't make it any faster than a direct connection.

- Brooks


--
The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed.