[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Netatalk over a wireless router?

On Dec 11, 2004, at 10:47 PM, Jacob S wrote:

On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:35:04 -0500
Rick Thomas <rbthomas55@pobox.com> wrote:

The wireless router is probably not a "multi-protocol" router.  If
so, it only handles IP, not AppleTalk.  Try connecting to your
printers and fileservers via IP.

Thanks! I hadn't even realized OS X let you use ip addresses for
netatalk stuff. Doing a search in Mac Help, I was able to figure out how
to use an ip for the file servers, but not printing. Even under the add
a printer option where it lets you select the protocol and one is IP
printing, it wouldn't work.

Any more tips?

Are there any UNIX/Linux hosts that can print to your printer? You can set up MacOS-X to use the "LPR" protocol to send to that host, which will then spool the job and print it to the printer when its turn comes up in the spool. That's what I usually do. The SysAdmin for the UNIX/Linux host may have to do some tweaking to allow you to connect to it.

Some modern laser printers talk LPR protocol (sometimes also called LPD protocol) as well as AppleTalk printer protocol. You may be able to use that to print directly rather than bouncing your jobs off a UNIX/Linux spooler.

Open MacOS Help and search for "Setting up to print to an IP Printing network printer". That should get you started.

AppleTalk has its good points, but it's no longer under active
maintenance.  We just need to learn to live with it.

True. Now if they would just setup OS X to work with Cups printers - I'd
be much happier than any samba compatability stuff. (Speaking of which,
I didn't see a way to print to a Windows printer - did I miss

Can't help you with Windows, though look at the Apple help files. That problem is common enough that Apple must have a solution up their sleeves somewhere!

For what it's worth, I thought that MacOS-X (since Jaguar at least) *did* use CUPS for it's printers. I could be wrong, of course.

Thanks again,



Reply to: