Printers: Parallel vs. USB

[RolyL]

As far as I can see, for a printer the USB port has a few advantages over the parallel:

1) Can't freeze the system the way parallel can.
2) Hot unplug etc.
3) Not going to be ditched in the near future as it's not legacy.
4) Doesn't take an IRQ / DMA for itself.

These aren't major issues though. Any advantages parallel has over USB? Which is faster for a single device?

 

[khtm]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
serial port: 115kbits/s (.115Mbits/s)

standard parallel port: 115kBytes/s (.115Mb/s)

USB: 12Mbits/s (1.5Mb/s)

ECP/EPP parallel port: 3Mb/s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-khtm-

 

[dullard]

<< I don't know of any advantages that parallel has over USB.

USB: 12Mbits/s (1.5Mb/s)

ECP/EPP parallel port: 3Mb/s

>>



Correct khtm. Everyone forgets about ECP parallel when they conclude that USB is better. I wish more people around here knew about it. I was bashed to bits when I claimed that my HP Laserjet 1200 could print 12 pages/minute with USB and 14 pages/minute with parallel.

Note: most printers cannot reach the speed of the HP Laserjet 1200. Thus most printers don't need the extra bandwidth. Thus most printers are fine with USB 1.0.

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<1) Can't freeze the system the way parallel can.>>

Parallel can freeze the system? First time I've heard that. Here's my take on it, Parallel is faster, and it's dedicated (generally). Most times, USB bandwidth is shared among a few devices, which limits the amount of bandwidth available to the printer. Granted, Parallel can be shared as well, but it is rather rare. Parallel also does not slow down / temporarily freeze when the system is working hard as USB does. I have to ask why anyone would need to hot swap a printer, I'm not saying that there's no reason to, just that I've not encountered a reason to. As for the IRQ / DMA, all I can say is that in my case it's not an issue as I have plenty of unused IRQ's and DMA's. (Thank you Win 2K.)

ZV

 

[sciencewhiz]

<< I don't know of any advantages that parallel has over USB. >>



Didn't you just list one? You said that ECP and EPP are twice as fast as USB, but that isn't an advantage? To make a correction, though, the maximum transfer rate of ECP and EPP is 2MB/sec not 3 like you said. <edit>it's the IEEE 1284-1994 standard that says 2mb/s. It is possible that a later standard increased the speed to 3mb/s. I just found the HP site that says 3mb/s so I don't really know which is right</edit>

To answer your points:

1) Freezing the system is a function of the drivers, not the interface. Any device can have crappy drivers and freeze your system, whether it be a parallel printer, USB printer, or VIA 4 in 1 drivers. Personally, I've had much more trouble with USB drivers then I have with parallel port printers.

2) You can hot plug/unplug any printer without causing any problems to the interface. Some HPs (and maybe others) poll the printer. This doesn't cause a problem for unplugging, but you might confuse it when you plug it back in. But you only said hot unplug

3) There are still motherboards being manufactured with ISA slots even though that was supposed to be ditched 2 years ago. You will be able to continue to use your parallel port for longer then you will keep your printer, most likely.

4) USB takes up IRQs too. In the same way that if you get rid of all your parallel port devices, you will be able to save an IRQ, if you get rid of all your USB devices, you will be able to save an IRQ.

The advantages that parallel has over USB is faster, no sharing of bandwidth, been around longer (more stable?), works in other OSs

You are right when you say that your advantages are not major issues, in fact my advantages are not either. When people ask me for advice on printers, I tell them to look at the features and pick the printer that they want, ignoring the interface. If the printer is parallel only or USB only get the cable and don't worry about it. If the printer can run both, use whichever cable you already have.

 

[Brian48]

For me, parallel has always been more reliable than USB when it comes to printers. In terms of performance, I've never noticed an appreciable difference either way. I would much rather leave the USB open for any other device I might want to install later.

 

[JellyBaby]

With USB 2.0 I suspect parallel printer connections will fall out of fashion. I run my HP on a parallel connection at least for the time being because I didn't have enough usb ports when I bought the HP. Now I do but I don't need to free up irq 7 so the printer stays as is. But eventually I'll move over to usb at some point.

I've had two problems with parallel: first, due to a windows or hp driver bug the OS would poll the printer during bootup. This exchange always caused a blank sheet to eject. The problem went away several months ago, I can't explain it. Second, hardware ecp mode doesn't work using the HP's highest quality settings -- it always garbles the output. And I even have a $35 printer cable. Pretty much a big letdown.

 

[SUOrangeman]

FWIW, I bought a $14 adapter to connect my parallel-port-driven laser printer to my system via USB. It works in all flavors of my Windows (XP, 2K, ME) and even in Linux (Mandrake 8.1). Granted, I only print once a month, but the USB setup meets my needs.

I also have my keyboard, mouse, scanner, MP3 player, and digital camera all connected via USB. The only problems I have are with my scanner and camera in Win2K as the manufacturers never provided decent drivers.

-SUO

 

[NFS4]

I just made the switch over to COMPLETE USB 1.1 and USB 2.0 DOMINATION!! No more legacy devices (Parallel, Serial, PS2). My old printer use 100% CPU utilization and make my system slow down. Not so with USB.

 

[RolyL]

Parallel can freeze the system?

Just try using the Direct Cable Connection option for Windows Networking and find how responsive your machine is whilst transferring a large file over parallel. It's abysmal.

 

[gradius]

<< Parallel can freeze the system?

Just try using the Direct Cable Connection option for Windows Networking and find how responsive your machine is whilst transferring a large file over parallel. It's abysmal. >>



That's the truth. I'd bring my laptop over to a friends house to swap files/DC gaming and we'd used direct connection via parallel. That soultion soon ended when I saw the way the host computer would nearly freeze when sending moderate amounts of data. We quickly invested in some cheap NICs and a hub - problem solved

 

[Paul]

Yes legacy is nice and all for some people but I say let it die!

 

[grrl]

Yes, on a slower system direct cable connection is so bad it's worth stopping all other work and just letting the files transfer. With my 1 gig Athlon it's not such a problem, by an old celery 433 I use is worthless.

 

[TunaBoo]

I hate USB.. It is so flakey. Go ps2 and ps/2 rate

USB works fine for some stuff, but scanners are made to be scsi, mice and keyboards ps/2, and printers parallel.

Maybe I am too old time though, but I DID ditch ISA finally

 

[bacillus]

<< Maybe I am too old time though, but I DID ditch ISA finally >>


shame on you!

 

[Priit]

<< Maybe I am too old time though, but I DID ditch ISA finally >>



I left ISA year ago, too, but now I want it back. Is there any KT266A-based mobo that has ISA slot? Instead of ISA, useless AMR/CNR crap is put into mobos..

 

[Yihaa]

Another plus of using USB instead of parallel is the cable size. USB cables are nice and slim; parallel are way bulky and it doesn't hekp tidying up
my already untidy desk.