Old parallel HP DeskJet 1000C and 64-bit OS's

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,693
2,071
126
First, I just caught this thread -- which is fairly recent:

Win 7 and older Dot Matrix . . . etc. etc.

This has been a major let-down for me. I splurged on this HP DeskJet 1000C sometime around 1995 or 1996. It's been a great inkjet printer, but especially, it prints 11x17 and even larger pages -- in foldable "tabloid" format if you want.

It had been connected to a Win 2000 server; occasionally used with an XP system. Then, I had it hooked up to a D-Link DP-300U print-server box. With the latter, it was a nuisance only because I could never get it to print multiple copies.

Finally, I decided to replace the Win2KPro server-box with a WHS server (still not installed). [I think I'm losing my grip in old-age, because I'm getting behind in my projects -- and procrastinate.]

Because the WHS had not been installed (but Win 7 64-bit HAD been set up on the intended WHS machine), and because I needed the printer for a newsletter project I'm doing in some volunteer work, I decided to hold off on the WHS installation and hook the printer up to a PCI LPT port configured on a VISTA 64 workstation.

With the latter, I couldn't get the 1000C to print a test page, and I'd have to reset the printer. Thinking the problem might be the LAVA PCI LPT port, I connected the 1000C to the planned WHS box (with Win 7 64-bit) -- which has its own LPT port.

NO CIGAR!! NADA!

It will be a terrible inconvenience to move this printer upstairs and connect it to an old XP-Pro system in a room where there's hardly any space for such a printer.

I'm wondering if it isn't time to chuck the HP 1000C and buy a USB printer capable of 11x17 page printing.

I'm also wondering, since it looks more promising that 32-bit drivers for Win 2003 work with this printer (from things I've read in forums) -- that my luck may improve once I've installed WHS.

Anybody else?
 

jdjbuffalo

Senior member
Oct 26, 2000
433
0
0
Originally posted by: BonzaiDuck
I'm wondering if it isn't time to chuck the HP 1000C and buy a USB printer capable of 11x17 page printing.

I'm also wondering, since it looks more promising that 32-bit drivers for Win 2003 work with this printer (from things I've read in forums) -- that my luck may improve once I've installed WHS.

Anybody else?

I would just recommend replacing a 14 year old printer...

However, if you want to still get some life out of it then you could try installing VM software and loading up Windows 2000 or XP on it. For the VM you should be able to use either VMWare or VirtualPC.

 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,693
2,071
126
Looks like my thread raised some . . . mild interest, so I thank all of you.

The latest status update:

I got Windows Home Server (32-bit) installed on the machine to which the HP DeskJet 1000C had been connected. That is, I wiped out my Windows 7 installation on that system -- replacing it with WHS.

It prints a perfect test-page without hesitation from the WHS "Printers and Faxes" properties for that printer, after automatically recognizing the printer and installing drivers during WHS installation.

Then, I set to work installing the WHS connector software on my VISTA 64 box, creating some user accounts, mapping a network drive on the VISTA 64 to a shared folder on the WHS.

The printer was automatically recognized under the shared folders of the WHS server -- shown in a shortcut on the VISTA 64 desktop after the connection software install and rudimentary configuration.

Next, I tried printing to the 1000C from the VISTA 64 system -- "test-page." Same problem: "No cigar."

I'd also set up a user account on the WHS for an XP Pro (32-bit) system upstairs, and it -- too -- showed the shared printer among the folders available on the WHS box.

Tried printing a test-page from the XP machine, and it works like a champ -- without a hitch.

It seems to me . . . If you can install a networked HP LaserJet 1200 (USB) to work from a VISTA 64 workstation, then a properly engineered driver for an HP DeskJet 1000C should also "work."

I submit that the problem is the driver available for VISTA 64 (or for Windows 7, for that matter), but there may be other issues, concerns, observations . . . I'll watch to see what any of y'all say to this.
 

jdjbuffalo

Senior member
Oct 26, 2000
433
0
0
I agree that it is probably an issue with the Vista 64 bit driver. One thing you might be able to do is try out a different driver for a similar product and point it to the parallel port. I've heard of this working for other people. The only provision is that you are limited in what features you want. But as long as you stick to basic printing then it should be alright.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
16,693
2,071
126
Originally posted by: jdjbuffalo
I agree that it is probably an issue with the Vista 64 bit driver. One thing you might be able to do is try out a different driver for a similar product and point it to the parallel port. I've heard of this working for other people. The only provision is that you are limited in what features you want. But as long as you stick to basic printing then it should be alright.

Yeah, you may have something there. There was a successor to the DeskJet 1000C -- a DeskJet 1120 or 1120C. From a naive view of it, they "look the same." I might try that.

But what might develop, until I can afford a newer printer with an economy ink-cartridge-replacement profile, is printing many documents to PDF (a format I use frequently for various purposes, anyway), sending them to a shared folder on the XP system upstairs, then connected to the XP system via Remote Desktop Connection and printing the documents to the printer (on the WHS system) down here.

Maybe I'll try installing an "1120C" before I settle on this approach. Old printers . . Geesh! Before we had computers, we had typewriters. As a college student, I could always find a vintage 1947 mechanical typewriter for $40 or $50, and it got me through grad school. I'll have to get used to the idea of just chucking the DeskJet and replacing with something else. We'll see. . . .