In NT/XP, MS supports parallel ports grudgingly and encourage you to invest in a USB device. I imagine it's the same for Linux.
Your printer appears to support USB, why not give it a whirl?
/icebiker
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ross Boylan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Ross Boylan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2004 13:58
Subject: parallel port using lots of CPU
When I print graphics my parallel port consumes all available CPU. Admittedly the jobs are large (40-90MG), but it seems odd so much attention is required. Is something wrong, or do I just have to live with it?
2.4.26 kernel on Athlon CPU. Lexmark Optra E310 is the printer; it speaks postscript natively. Gigabyte GA-7IXE4 motherboard; the parallel port is on the board.
Originally I was using lpd in the lpr package. With that, lpd showed as the CPU consumer. I just switched to CUPS; now parallel:/dev/lp0 shows as the CPU consumer. My guess is that it was before, but the time was just being attributed to lpd.
P.S. Maybe it is a hardware limitation; under Windows NT the parallel got a kind of odd treatment, including the fact that the driver had to poll it and some utilities couldn't use it, though they could under Win95. I always thought it was just an NT quirk.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]