whats better usb or paralel?

[[NeoZeeD]]

hi i got a lame question.

i just got a printer that uses both usb and paralell.

i purchased a usb cord but when i got home i noticed i have a spare paralell cord.

whats better to use a usb or paralell cord?

also would i notice any difference if i use usb?

[MacGyver]

This was debated in another thread here a while back, and I think the consensus was that there is no performance advantage to using either interface. So pick whatever is more convenient for you.

[[NeoZeeD]]

ok thanks

im going to return the usb cord since it costed me 20 bucks

[FatalException0E]

A USB cable should have cost a lot less than that. Lemme guess, you got it at Best Buy? When I was printing with my HP dj 932C on parallel, the system process shot up to 50% CPU usage or more. On USB, its more like 5%

[WebHead]

If you needed to free up an IRQ for some reason, then you could disable the printer port (parallel port), but continue to use the printer with the USB cable. That would be one advantage for sure. But as far as performance differences? Naw, won't see any.

Right now, with my USB hub going on, I have so many more external peripheral devices hooked up then I ever would've been able to have years ago. It's very cool.

[[NeoZeeD]]

hehehe

yeah i did buy the usb cable at best buy.

and i did notice when i print pics with the glossy paper my system runs slow. would this happen if i use usb?

im still going to return the usb cable it was really pricey im sure i can find cheaper at walmart probably

[WebHead]

If I had a choice, I would run ALL of my peripheral harware with USB. Or actually firewire for everything would be even better!

One more thing.. Consider this, Serial is always faster than parallel. And USB is Serial. So it IS faster as far as sending data is concerned. It won't make your printer print pages any faster though. But it will send the print data to the printer a helluva lot faster though.

[DonJ]

Here is the discussion on the <a href="http://forums.windrivers.com/cgi-bin/forum3/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000918&p=" target="_blank">same subject back in February</a>.
I would tend to go with what the manufacturers say about the subject...HP says that data transfer on the USB is 35 to 50% faster than parallel. That's good enough for me.

[Draggar]

[quote]Originally posted by DonJ:
<strong>Here is the discussion on the <a href="http://forums.windrivers.com/cgi-bin/forum3/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=000918&p=" target="_blank">same subject back in February</a>.
I would tend to go with what the manufacturers say about the subject...HP says that data transfer on the USB is 35 to 50% faster than parallel. That's good enough for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But printers don't print fast enough to make a difference.
Sure, the data will get there faster, but if the printer doesn't have enough memory, then it will still bog down the PC.

But, I still prefer USB. ITs easier to work with.
My 970 is USB, and my 1100A is parallel (no USB port and I hate those adapters).

[DonJ]

OK, let's look at this way. Say you've got a LaserJet that is rated at 6 pages per minute. But it takes 60 seconds per page to download an Excel spreadsheet to the printer via the parallel interface. But it only takes 30 or 40 seconds with the USB. And, you've got 50 pages to print out. Which way would you go? Doesn't common sense come in to play at some point? At this point, you're not limited by the speed of the printer but by the speed of the interface.

[confus-ed]

[quote]Originally posted by WebHead:
<strong>One more thing.. Consider this, Serial is always faster than parallel. And USB is Serial. So it IS faster as far as sending data is concerned. It won't make your printer print pages any faster though. But it will send the print data to the printer a helluva lot faster though.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Lies dammed lies and statistics!

Yes usb(serial) is faster than parallel, but only because manufacturers were/are unable to find their way around skew. You telling me one wire can deliver faster than losts of wires....?

I don't think so