parallel or usb

[raydioactive]

Which is better for a printer, a parallel or usb connection?
Is usb much faster?

[cobra]

Well, I have both, and I like the usb printer best. mainly because it's an hp970cxi and my other printer is a canon 4300.
I think usb is the way to go.

[Omletteboy]

I have a usb hp printer, usb is faster than parallel.

[raydioactive]

Thank's guys, usb it is then:)

[bailey]

also I think that if it is on usb, then you also will free up the irq that the port was useing, there it would be better.

[madthumbs]

USB is much faster, even on a slow HP printer. However, my mouse is USB also, and it tends to stutter when printing.

[bdunn]

USB is faster than parallel however for a scanner SCSI is the best way to go.

[slipe]

Everyone seems to be singing in harmony here but I don’t think I agree.
I have never seen a spec sheet for a dual interface printer that gives different PPM numbers for USB and parallel.
I have never seen a review of a dual interface printer that reported a difference.
I have never seen an article where anyone found that a printer works faster on USB than parallel. I have read many that say there is no difference.
Currently from ZDNet printers: “The conventional choice for connecting to a stand-alone system is a parallel port, which is generally still the best choice.”

USB has a higher theoretical bandwidth than ECP, but a printer does not stress either one. The spooler is CPU intensive as the process is complex, but the throughput to the printer is not high enough that either interface is a bottleneck.

If you have no other USB devices it is a tossup if you are sure you will not add any. If you do have other USB devices there is no need to have to share the bandwidth.

Parallel port got a bad name when people went out and bought parallel port devices other than printers before USB was inexpensive. The port does not share very well for bi-directional connections and it slow for something with high throughput like a scanner. Works great for a printer though.

I agree with Bailey about saving the IRQ if you are having problems.

[RJ]

Hi raydioactive,

well, usb actually is faster than parallel, but, as slipe said, the printer performance is - more or less - the same.
Nevertheless you should go with usb, because is has more advantages, i.e. the hot plugging (maybe you'll need it, who knows. . .).
Well, I haven't seen a single printer only with usb so far. Every newer printer (with one or two exceptions) has both, so taking the printer with usb is actually better.
I have my old hp deskjep 690c connected with a parallel-usb adapter to the usb port, and I haven't had a single problem with it :)
Go with usb, it will replace the parallel port. The parallel port only is for 'older' pc's or pc's with OS which don't support usb.

RJ

[glc]

I'm with slipe on this one 100%. Sorry, guys. The limited power of the USB port is better used for other bandwidth intensive items like scanners and Zip drives. Of course, if you have more than one printer, USB makes a lot of sense because it's easier to manage than additional parallel ports.

Remember - between AGP, PCI, and USB, you only have 4 IRQ's that can be used - if you already have your 4, disabling the LPT gains you absolutely nothing. If you need to free up an IRQ, Com 2 is usually the first to go here because not too many people have 2 external serial devices any more.