From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Sep 20 07:51:23 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A3B016A4B3 for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 07:51:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pc2-cove3-6-cust88.brhm.cable.ntl.com (pc2-cove3-6-cust88.brhm.cable.ntl.com [81.107.10.88]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA2DE43F3F for ; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 07:51:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ianjhart@ntlworld.com) Received: from gamma.private.lan (gamma.private.lan [192.168.0.12]) id h8KEpJM1005410; Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:51:20 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from ianjhart@ntlworld.com) From: ian j hart To: Kirk Strauser Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 15:51:19 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 References: <87fzisoi53.fsf@strauser.com> <200309201340.02453.ianjhart@ntlworld.com> <87brtfmvj7.fsf@strauser.com> In-Reply-To: <87brtfmvj7.fsf@strauser.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200309201551.19467.ianjhart@ntlworld.com> cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HP Laserjet 1200 on USB X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 14:51:23 -0000 On Saturday 20 September 2003 2:36 pm, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2003-09-20T12:40:02Z, ian j hart writes: > > 2) > > What makes you think USB will be faster? The bottleneck is almost > > certainly the print engine. esp. in graphics mode. > > It currently takes about 5 minutes to transfer a 20MB file to my printer > which has 64MB of memory. So you have extra RAM then. > Printing starts within 5-10 seconds of the upload being completed. Q. How much of the 5 mins is data transfer, and how much is "printer busy"= =20 (rendering)? A. Nobody knows :) Only when USB works will we know. We could test under Windows I suppose** > If the parallel port is in interrupt mode, CPU is > pegged to 100% the whole time. In polled mode, CPU usage drops, but the > printing time doesn't decrease (and the ``parallel'' process is running t= he > whole time). That's what made me think that the parallel port is probably > the bottleneck. Perhaps IEEE1284 support needs "tweaking". What's your data? One 20Mb graphic is different to a 20Mb "text" document. As a point of reference here is what we have. Win95 clients with PS driver -> K6II500 servers running samba + cups -> sto= ck=20 1200's (ie. 8Mb) A page of text takes about a minute, graphics about 3. MS Word will let you= =20 add a border made up of replicated images. A large graphic plus a border ca= n=20 take 20 mins+. Now this could easily be the client software/driver, but public opinion see= ms=20 to be that these printers are slow on graphics. **again Just my 2c. =2D-=20 ian j hart Quoth the raven, bite me! Salem Saberhagen (Episode LXXXI: The Phantom Menace) **Personally I don't care. It's a "real" PS and text printer for ~=A3200. I= work=20 at a school, cost is a primary consideration.