Re: pci-to-parallel vs usb-to-parallel?

[owens@netptc.net]

>
>
>
>---- Original Message ----
>From: bob_mcgowan@symantec.com
>To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
>Subject: Re: pci-to-parallel vs usb-to-parallel?
>Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:33:50 -0700
>
>>Mike Fontenot wrote:
>>> My new PC doesn't have a parallel port on the back (or anywhere
>else),
>>> and I need one for my HP1200 B/W laser printer.  I've seen
>inexpensive
>>> PCI cards that have one or two parallel ports, and also some
>cables that
>>> convert between USB and parallel.  Any advice on which of these
>>> alternatives is likely to give me the least trouble getting
>printing to
>>> work (with etch or lenny)?
>>> 
>>> 	Mike Fontenot
>>> 
>>> 
>>
>>The absolute least trouble would seem be to get the PCI card, since
>it 
>>will use "standard" chips that will work, out of the box, with
>Linux. 
>>But the USB is easier, since you just need to plug it in, no opening
>the 
>>case with associated potential for breaking something physically. 
>And 
>>USB to parallel support should not be an issue, though I'm no expert
>on 
>>that aspect.
>>
>>Other issues to consider:
>>
>>How many PCI slots are available?  Will there be a need for other
>PCI 
>>cards, now or in the future?  The answer here may indicate the USB
>route 
>>is better, as it conserves PCI slots for future use.
>>
>>Speed over USB will be limited to the PP port speed at max but could
>be 
>>impacted by other devices on the USB bus, if there are any.
>>
>>If it were me, I'd factor in the cost, as well.  If they were close,
>I'd 
>>probably choose the USB interface path, mostly due to not needing to
>
>>open the chassis to implement it.
>>
>>-- 
>>Bob McGowan

Or it may be time to consider springing for a new printer (?)
Larry