Re: LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- From: "Bazooka-Joe" <seth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 8 Sep 2005 10:55:20 -0700
Nathan Weldon wrote:
> Okay, but you do have to install file and print services for unix to use LPR
> don't you?
Correct, you do have to install print services for UNIX to use LPR. We
used to use LPR across the board here intermixed with (wince) DLC
ports. We're strictly Standard TCP/IP ports now though. Won't ever go
back. Slightly easier to create than LPR's, a little bit more
configurability (RAW/9100 or LPR-based) and that has gotten me out of a
jam or two.
One thing to note though. I would not create a Standard TCP/IP port
for a printer that is not responding to pings yet. You could do this
with LPR. Sort of pre-create the port. But I find my ports are
unstable at best, and sometimes don't work at all if I create the port
before I can ping the printer. But other than that, I've had no
problems with Standard ports. Most of the major vendors in their
documentation are going to assume that's what you're using.
:Bazooka-Joe
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- From: Nathan Weldon
- Re: LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- References:
- LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- From: Nathan Weldon
- Re: LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- From: Bruce Sanderson
- Re: LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- From: Nathan Weldon
- LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- Prev by Date: Re: Printing from a DOS Session to an IP Printer
- Next by Date: Re: Printing from a DOS Session to an IP Printer
- Previous by thread: Re: LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- Next by thread: Re: LPR verses Normal TCP/IP printing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
