W98 as printerserver

Hi all,

I have a W2k workstation and to speed up heavy printjobs (graphics) I use a
W98SE PC via a LAN as a printerserver.
On the W2k I installed the network printers and use "print directly to
printer". On the W98 PC I enabled the spooler and use EMF data format. Is
this the best (fastest) way to do it or are there any better ways?

Thanks in advance.

With best regards,

Fokke Nauta

Use of a spooled printer frees up the printing computer more quickly but
puts a larger workload on the printer host. Direct printing keeps the
printing computer tied up longer but causes less work for the PC hosting the
printer.

Neither is "better" or "faster" since the printer is going to take as long
to print a job no matter which you use - any printer is far slower than the
job coming to it. The question is, which computer would you rather have
working the longest?

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (E-Mail Removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Fokke Nauta" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:WEoTb.1542$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi all,
>
> I have a W2k workstation and to speed up heavy printjobs (graphics) I use
> a
> W98SE PC via a LAN as a printerserver.
> On the W2k I installed the network printers and use "print directly to
> printer". On the W98 PC I enabled the spooler and use EMF data format. Is
> this the best (fastest) way to do it or are there any better ways?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Fokke Nauta
>
>

"Richard G. Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Use of a spooled printer frees up the printing computer more quickly but
> puts a larger workload on the printer host. Direct printing keeps the
> printing computer tied up longer but causes less work for the PC hosting
the
> printer.
>
> Neither is "better" or "faster" since the printer is going to take as long
> to print a job no matter which you use - any printer is far slower than
the
> job coming to it. The question is, which computer would you rather have
> working the longest?
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (E-Mail Removed)
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>

<cut>

I'd like to free up the host as quick as possible so I can keep working with
my application.
I thought that "printing directly to the printer" would send the data
immediately to the print server, so the host should be freed straight away.
The print server would actually do the spooling job. But is this right?

Rgs, Fokke Nauta

In article <DerTb.1612$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Fokke Nauta <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Richard G. Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Use of a spooled printer frees up the printing computer more quickly but
>> puts a larger workload on the printer host. Direct printing keeps the
>> printing computer tied up longer but causes less work for the PC hosting
>the
>> printer.
>>
>> Neither is "better" or "faster" since the printer is going to take as long
>> to print a job no matter which you use - any printer is far slower than
>the
>> job coming to it. The question is, which computer would you rather have
>> working the longest?
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (E-Mail Removed)
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
>> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>
><cut>
>
>I'd like to free up the host as quick as possible so I can keep working with
>my application.
>I thought that "printing directly to the printer" would send the data
>immediately to the print server, so the host should be freed straight away.
>The print server would actually do the spooling job. But is this right?
>
>Rgs, Fokke Nauta

It sounds like "host" means the desktop PC you use to run your
application, it's running w2k/XP, and you want the hour glass to go
away as quickly as possible so you can get on with your work.

I suggest, on all your desktop machines, you spool to the hard drive
and let the spooling/queue software talk to the printer in the
background. The speed to write to your hard disk is going to be faster
than PC-lan-PC-disk, especially if one of the PCs is Win/98, and
probably an older machine, at that.

I'd look for a jetdirect (or equiv) NIC/print server and hook the
printer directly to the lan. They all implement LPRD and will talk
directly to your workstation's queue software via LPR protocol.






--
Al Dykes
-----------
(E-Mail Removed)

"Al Dykes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bvlkvh$qd2$(E-Mail Removed)...

<cut>

> It sounds like "host" means the desktop PC you use to run your
> application, it's running w2k/XP, and you want the hour glass to go
> away as quickly as possible so you can get on with your work.
>
> I suggest, on all your desktop machines, you spool to the hard drive
> and let the spooling/queue software talk to the printer in the
> background. The speed to write to your hard disk is going to be faster
> than PC-lan-PC-disk, especially if one of the PCs is Win/98, and
> probably an older machine, at that.

You are right. I have done some proper testing and spooling om my local W2k
workstation is faster that sending it over the LAN to the print server. So -
exit print server ! BTW, when printing through a USB port, the load on the
local system is much higher during a longer time. Still, the application I
am printing off is released much faster. Interesting stuff.

> I'd look for a jetdirect (or equiv) NIC/print server and hook the
> printer directly to the lan. They all implement LPRD and will talk
> directly to your workstation's queue software via LPR protocol.
>
>
> --
> Al Dykes
> -----------
> (E-Mail Removed)
>

That's the best solution but also the most costly. I better keep the
spooling process on my local machine.

With regards,

Fokke Nauta

In article <ELuTb.1632$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Fokke Nauta <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Al Dykes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:bvlkvh$qd2$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
><cut>
>
>> It sounds like "host" means the desktop PC you use to run your
>> application, it's running w2k/XP, and you want the hour glass to go
>> away as quickly as possible so you can get on with your work.
>>
>> I suggest, on all your desktop machines, you spool to the hard drive
>> and let the spooling/queue software talk to the printer in the
>> background. The speed to write to your hard disk is going to be faster
>> than PC-lan-PC-disk, especially if one of the PCs is Win/98, and
>> probably an older machine, at that.
>
>You are right. I have done some proper testing and spooling om my local W2k
>workstation is faster that sending it over the LAN to the print server. So -
>exit print server ! BTW, when printing through a USB port, the load on the
>local system is much higher during a longer time. Still, the application I
>am printing off is released much faster. Interesting stuff.
>
>> I'd look for a jetdirect (or equiv) NIC/print server and hook the
>> printer directly to the lan. They all implement LPRD and will talk
>> directly to your workstation's queue software via LPR protocol.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Al Dykes
>> -----------
>> (E-Mail Removed)
>>
>
>That's the best solution but also the most costly. I better keep the
>spooling process on my local machine.
>


Putting a jetdirect NIC on the printer doesn't change where the
spool(s) are with LPR/LPRD. There is no disk storage on the printers
we are talking about here. The queue software on all the clients
stores your work.

>With regards,
>
>Fokke Nauta
>
>
>
>


--
Al Dykes
-----------
(E-Mail Removed)

I see you and Al have worked this through, I'll add nothing except to say
that if your goal is to get the client PC (the one you're creating the
document on) back to work fast then the best bet is to spool the document to
the host PC (the one with the printer) instead of printing directly to the
printer.

And as Al has also pointed out, adding a JetDirect card probably won't help
speed up the direct print job unless it has a lot of memory on it or you
print only very small documents. You're probably best off leaving things as
they are.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (E-Mail Removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Fokke Nauta" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
newserTb.1612$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Richard G. Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Use of a spooled printer frees up the printing computer more quickly but
>> puts a larger workload on the printer host. Direct printing keeps the
>> printing computer tied up longer but causes less work for the PC hosting
> the
>> printer.
>>
>> Neither is "better" or "faster" since the printer is going to take as
>> long
>> to print a job no matter which you use - any printer is far slower than
> the
>> job coming to it. The question is, which computer would you rather have
>> working the longest?
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (E-Mail Removed)
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
>> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>
> <cut>
>
> I'd like to free up the host as quick as possible so I can keep working
> with
> my application.
> I thought that "printing directly to the printer" would send the data
> immediately to the print server, so the host should be freed straight
> away.
> The print server would actually do the spooling job. But is this right?
>
> Rgs, Fokke Nauta
>
>

"Richard G. Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
> I see you and Al have worked this through, I'll add nothing except to say
> that if your goal is to get the client PC (the one you're creating the
> document on) back to work fast then the best bet is to spool the document
to
> the host PC (the one with the printer) instead of printing directly to the
> printer.
>
> And as Al has also pointed out, adding a JetDirect card probably won't
help
> speed up the direct print job unless it has a lot of memory on it or you
> print only very small documents. You're probably best off leaving things
as
> they are.
>
> --
> Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (E-Mail Removed)
> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>

<cut>

I found out that spooling on the workstation (client) is the quickliest way
to free up the application that is printing. However, when printing over a
USB connection puts a load during a rather long period on the workstation.
Printing over a parallel port doesn't.
What I've done is use a networked printer, enable spooling on the
workstation and spooling on the print server.
Spooling on the workstation frees up the application straight away.
Spooling on the print server takes off the load from the work station during
the printing process.
Best of both ways !

Thanks both for your help!

With best regards,

Fokke Nauta

I'm glad we were able to help you find the best solution.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (E-Mail Removed)
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
* HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Fokke Nauta" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:fTJTb.1973$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Richard G. Harper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:#(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I see you and Al have worked this through, I'll add nothing except to say
>> that if your goal is to get the client PC (the one you're creating the
>> document on) back to work fast then the best bet is to spool the document
> to
>> the host PC (the one with the printer) instead of printing directly to
>> the
>> printer.
>>
>> And as Al has also pointed out, adding a JetDirect card probably won't
> help
>> speed up the direct print job unless it has a lot of memory on it or you
>> print only very small documents. You're probably best off leaving things
> as
>> they are.
>>
>> --
>> Richard G. Harper [MVP Win9x] (E-Mail Removed)
>> * PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
>> * for the benefit of all. Private mail is usually not replied to.
>> * HELP us help YOU ... http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>>
>
> <cut>
>
> I found out that spooling on the workstation (client) is the quickliest
> way
> to free up the application that is printing. However, when printing over a
> USB connection puts a load during a rather long period on the workstation.
> Printing over a parallel port doesn't.
> What I've done is use a networked printer, enable spooling on the
> workstation and spooling on the print server.
> Spooling on the workstation frees up the application straight away.
> Spooling on the print server takes off the load from the work station
> during
> the printing process.
> Best of both ways !
>
> Thanks both for your help!
>
> With best regards,
>
> Fokke Nauta
>
>
>
>