Print server advice please.

I am trying to sort out a small print server for my home network.
It will be used to run a Samsung ML-2250.

I've looked at the Netgear PS101 but that gets fairly bad reports on Usenet.

The Netgear PS110 looks better, and has the option for another printer,
which might be useful. However, it doesn't support bi-directional
communication, which mean the printer cannot notify the PCs of problems etc.

Can anyone offer any advice on small print servers?
Is bi-directionality an issue, in practice?
These little servers seem to only have a small amount of memory. Is that
an issue? It's only me printing, and not that much. I just want to be
able to do it from any of three PCs.

Any recommendations? We are talking economy here ;-) but I don't mind
paying another quid or two for a decent product.

Regards, John


P.S. Re. bi-directionality - I'm assuming that this is a little more
important for, say, an Epson inkjet where the printer software tells you
ink levels etc. Is that true?

P.P.S. I realise I could configure a PC running Linux to do this job.
problem is it would still be a relatively big and noisy, unless I get
into slightly experimental stuf like CF-card 'hard disks' etc. I'm
really after a neat and compact plugin-and-go answer.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:11:58 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>Any recommendations?

use a computer instead.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

"John Fryatt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ilonf.27953$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I am trying to sort out a small print server for my home network.
> It will be used to run a Samsung ML-2250.
>
> I've looked at the Netgear PS101 but that gets fairly bad reports on
Usenet.
>
> The Netgear PS110 looks better, and has the option for another printer,
> which might be useful. However, it doesn't support bi-directional
> communication, which mean the printer cannot notify the PCs of problems
etc.
>
> Can anyone offer any advice on small print servers?
> Is bi-directionality an issue, in practice?
> These little servers seem to only have a small amount of memory. Is that
> an issue? It's only me printing, and not that much. I just want to be
> able to do it from any of three PCs.
>
> Any recommendations? We are talking economy here ;-) but I don't mind
> paying another quid or two for a decent product.
>
> Regards, John
>
>
> P.S. Re. bi-directionality - I'm assuming that this is a little more
> important for, say, an Epson inkjet where the printer software tells you
> ink levels etc. Is that true?
>
> P.P.S. I realise I could configure a PC running Linux to do this job.
> problem is it would still be a relatively big and noisy, unless I get
> into slightly experimental stuf like CF-card 'hard disks' etc. I'm
> really after a neat and compact plugin-and-go answer.

Just a couple of zero-cost alternatives:
If you normally have one of your PCs switched on 24/7, use that
(using Windows file & printer sharing).
Look into WOL and use it to wake-up the PC that has the printer
attached.
HTH
--
Rob

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:11:58 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>I am trying to sort out a small print server for my home network.
>It will be used to run a Samsung ML-2250.
>
>I've looked at the Netgear PS101 but that gets fairly bad reports on Usenet.
>
>The Netgear PS110 looks better, and has the option for another printer,
>which might be useful. However, it doesn't support bi-directional
>communication, which mean the printer cannot notify the PCs of problems etc.
>
>Can anyone offer any advice on small print servers?
>Is bi-directionality an issue, in practice?
>These little servers seem to only have a small amount of memory. Is that
>an issue? It's only me printing, and not that much. I just want to be
>able to do it from any of three PCs.
>
>Any recommendations? We are talking economy here ;-) but I don't mind
>paying another quid or two for a decent product.
>
>Regards, John
>
>
>P.S. Re. bi-directionality - I'm assuming that this is a little more
>important for, say, an Epson inkjet where the printer software tells you
>ink levels etc. Is that true?
>
>P.P.S. I realise I could configure a PC running Linux to do this job.
>problem is it would still be a relatively big and noisy, unless I get
>into slightly experimental stuf like CF-card 'hard disks' etc. I'm
>really after a neat and compact plugin-and-go answer.

I've replaced 3 HP Jetdirect with PS110 and they work very well. IIRC,
under NT4 they require bidirectional comms turned on to work - though
will have to confirm this when I go in to school tomorrow.

I would suggest checking the Netgear site for incompatible printers,
as some just will not work through the PS110.

PeeGee
--
The reply address is a spam trap. If you need to reply directly, put the UK where it should be - first.

Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:11:58 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Any recommendations?
>
>
> use a computer instead.
>
> Phil

When I say I know I can use a PC to do this job but prefer not to, it is
a bit frustrating to then be advised to "use a computer". What is the
point of this? :-(

Also, advice is a lot more useful if it comes with reasons for giving
it. A bald statement doesn't help me make my mind up.

John

Rob Hemmings wrote:
> "John Fryatt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:ilonf.27953$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>>I am trying to sort out a small print server for my home network.
>>It will be used to run a Samsung ML-2250.
<snip>

> Just a couple of zero-cost alternatives:
> If you normally have one of your PCs switched on 24/7, use that
> (using Windows file & printer sharing).
> Look into WOL and use it to wake-up the PC that has the printer
> attached.
> HTH

Well, thanks but not really. I understand I could use a PC to do it, but
I prefer not to leave one on 24/7. That's why I want the server.

Servers are cheap enough, it's just a matter of finding a halfway decent
one.

PeeGee wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:11:58 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I am trying to sort out a small print server for my home network.
>>It will be used to run a Samsung ML-2250.
<snip>
> I've replaced 3 HP Jetdirect with PS110 and they work very well. IIRC,
> under NT4 they require bidirectional comms turned on to work - though
> will have to confirm this when I go in to school tomorrow.

Interesting. The Netgear site says the servers do not support
bi-directionality and that it should be turned off.
I'd be interested to know how you've set yours up as the lack of bi-dir
seemed like a failing of the Netgear box.

> I would suggest checking the Netgear site for incompatible printers,
> as some just will not work through the PS110.

The don't mention my printer, but maybe I'll ask specifically.

Thanks for the advice.

John

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:33:34 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>PeeGee wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 00:11:58 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am trying to sort out a small print server for my home network.
>>>It will be used to run a Samsung ML-2250.
><snip>
>> I've replaced 3 HP Jetdirect with PS110 and they work very well. IIRC,
>> under NT4 they require bidirectional comms turned on to work - though
>> will have to confirm this when I go in to school tomorrow.
>
>Interesting. The Netgear site says the servers do not support
>bi-directionality and that it should be turned off.
>I'd be interested to know how you've set yours up as the lack of bi-dir
>seemed like a failing of the Netgear box.
>
>> I would suggest checking the Netgear site for incompatible printers,
>> as some just will not work through the PS110.
>
>The don't mention my printer, but maybe I'll ask specifically.
>
>Thanks for the advice.
>
>John
Ok, went through things today and must admit to a bit of confusion on
my part.

As you rightly say, bi-directional access is not available generally,
but the NT setup needs this "on" or the printer software (Canon i560)
complains and will not print! However, the monitor software with the
i560 cannot communicate with the printer.

Fortunately, Canons do not seem to fail if the ink runs out and seem
quite happy for the ink tank to be removed for inspection, even if
still containing ink, so we don't have a real problem as there is a
teacher near the printer when it is being used.

Apologies for misleading previously.

PeeGee
--
The reply address is a spam trap. If you need to reply directly, put the UK where it should be - first.

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:28:04 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>When I say I know I can use a PC to do this job but prefer not to, it is
> a bit frustrating to then be advised to "use a computer". What is the
>point of this?

that P.P.S was off the bottom of my screen below your name, so I only
saw it by going back and looking now. If its so critical perhaps it
should be at the top and not at the bottom ?

IMO network print servers have such limited compatibility as to render
them not worth considering.

You might be lucky and finding something that works well with one
printer and then change the printer and find its useless.

Phil
--

Usenet spam eaten by a Hamster http://www.tglsoft.de/
No more cable clowns :-))
Please do not feed or re-quote the trolls.

Phil Thompson wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 14:28:04 GMT, John Fryatt <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>When I say I know I can use a PC to do this job but prefer not to, it is
>>a bit frustrating to then be advised to "use a computer". What is the
>>point of this?
>
> that P.P.S was off the bottom of my screen below your name, so I only
> saw it by going back and looking now. If its so critical perhaps it
> should be at the top and not at the bottom ?

It's not 'critical', more of an addition to clarify my question, which
was about print servers from the start.

> IMO network print servers have such limited compatibility as to render
> them not worth considering.
>
> You might be lucky and finding something that works well with one
> printer and then change the printer and find its useless.

I am coming round to that point of view. Seems like they aren't that
great on supporting printer functions, at least not the cheap ones.

Thanks, John