What Type Of Printer Uses Most CPU Resources?

[Crummy]

I'm looking at a new printer, either HP LaserJet 1000, or 1200. Seems like whenever I print it really slows my computer down, would upgrading to one of these make that change? Currently use Win98 for this system, and have an HP inkjet installed.

[joecls]

usually, the printer itself is not the problem, it is the size of the processor, or the amount of installed memory in your computer, try to give details about your 'puter and i can tell you more,.

[SeanC]

Usually it's CPU or driver related...

Hardware specs will help.

Sean

[[Neo770]]

As for as I know, its more to do with the interface then anything else. I know that useing the parallel port will really make things slow down. A printer on the USB port is far more effecient.

[JayMan]

Quote:

Originally posted by [Neo770]
As for as I know, its more to do with the interface then anything else. I know that useing the parallel port will really make things slow down. A printer on the USB port is far more effecient.

Well said... and ditto

JayMan

[Peter M]

Depends. Rendering the pages will always be done by the system CPU. The higher the resolution and color depth, the more work. Then, the interface connection takes its toll while transferring the data. Using USB over legacy parallel port is good since the former is on a fast chipset internal connection (or the PCI bus at least) rather than the slow legacy I/O appendix. For high volume laser printers, an Ethernet or USB 2.0 "high speed" connection is ideal. (NB: USB 2.0 "full speed" is nothing else but USB 1.x speed with a new badge.)

[Crummy]

Thanks guys,
I bought the 1200 and a USB cable, my old printer was Parallel, and an InkJet. Hopefullt this will speed things up. I'm printing mainly documents without graphics.

[bill1971]

Peter M:

I always respect what you have to say, and appreciate your level of knowledge. Can you please explain your last statement:

"For high volume laser printers, an Ethernet or USB 2.0 "high speed" connection is ideal. (NB: USB 2.0 "full speed" is nothing else but USB 1.x speed with a new badge.)"

At first glance, those statements appear somewhat contradictory.
Please explain further - it just seems that you are both "touting"
and then "bashing" USB 2.0 at the same time.

Thanks, in advance, for the clarification. . .

- Bill

[Peter M]

USB 2.0 devices can implement one of three speed levels: Slow and Full, which have been there in USB 1.x already. Then there's High Speed (which is faster than Full speed, idiots!).

Now since marketing guys like to twist reality, by far not every device advertized as USB 2.0 is actually using High speed. Watch what you buy ...

regards, Peter

[SPEEDO]

(which is faster than Full speed, idiots!)................