Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
ports (and other things).

I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.

So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?

-Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>


Buy a USB to Parallel adapter.

--

Rob

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Bruno;
Parallel is antique and on the way out.
Whether Dell is first or last, it will probably eventually be the norm.

Purchase an adapter for the antique printer.

--
Jupiter Jones
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org


"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I bought a cheap parallel to USB cable for my older
printers. Turns them into USB ones.

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the
> Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered
> by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I
> should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably
> not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason
> to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than parallel (or serial) connections and the cables are easier to manage. A bloke needs to buy a parallel-to-USB adapter for his venerable 4L, which will probably still be in service when you're buying the next computer after this one.

Ted Zieglar

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

If you absolutely insist on keeping the quaint, antiquated parallel printer,
then buy a parallel to USB adapter. However, with a little effort, you can
find a more modern USB printer for what you will pay for the USB-parallel
adapter.

Dell lasted longer than most. Parallel has been dead for a couple of years
for now.

Bobby

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com>,
myName@myISP.net says...

> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?

It is an unfortunate (and unnecessary, IMO) trend in the industry,
and it extends to RS232 serial ports as well.

With the various chipsets available today, and the pre-assembled
connector arrays available to motherboard makers, it costs practically
nothing to continue to place serial and parallel ports in PC's. I see
the industry's trend away from such as merely another way to force
people into spending more money to "upgrade" their printers, as you've
already found out.

For my part: I will not buy any laptop, or desktop motherboard,
that does not have at least one standard serial and parallel port.

My advice would be to build your own system from scratch. That
way, you can hunt up a decent motherboard (I'm a big fan of Tyan) that
still has S & P ports.

Happy hunting.


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Why criticize the OP's values by calling it a "quaint, antiquated parallel
printer". If it gets the job done reliably, and the OP does not need any of the
bells and whistles of a newer printer, why should he replace it?

Keep in mind that the printer manufacturers (all of them, HP, Lexmark, Epson,
Canon) have kludged their cartridges as much as possible to either eliminate or
discourage use of anything but their own brand of cartridge, not a 3rd party
cartridge or a refilled one. And then, when you buy a printer, you get
mini-cartridges with just a smidgen of ink. When the cartridges run out of ink
a couple of hundred pages later, reality sets in, in the form of cartridge
prices which approach the cost of the printer itself. I may be exaggerating
here, but not by a lot.

Against this backdrop, a quaint antiquated parallel printer with rock-bottom
operating costs sounds real good. Myself, I run an HP LaserJet 5 with parallel
port, but networked. At a cost of $20 to $50 per 5000 pages for toner, my
printing costs are hard to beat.

But you and others have said it well: "buy a parallel to USB adapter." End of
story. Sometimes, oldies really are goodies... Ben Myers

On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:09:20 GMT, "NoNoBadDog!" <no_@spam_verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
>news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
>> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>> ports (and other things).
>>
>> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>
>> -Bruno
>
>If you absolutely insist on keeping the quaint, antiquated parallel printer,
>then buy a parallel to USB adapter. However, with a little effort, you can
>find a more modern USB printer for what you will pay for the USB-parallel
>adapter.
>
>Dell lasted longer than most. Parallel has been dead for a couple of years
>for now.
>
>Bobby
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Ben Myers wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Against this backdrop, a quaint antiquated parallel printer with rock-bottom
> operating costs sounds real good. Myself, I run an HP LaserJet 5 with parallel
> port, but networked. At a cost of $20 to $50 per 5000 pages for toner, my
> printing costs are hard to beat.

My workhorse is an HP 6P. While I purchased an inkjet, years ago, strictly for
graphics, the vast majority of my printing is B/W text, and the HP fits the
bill to a tee. (I'm running it as a wireless, networked printer.)

Notan

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message
news:4328FD1A.70FB1850@ddress.com...
> Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Against this backdrop, a quaint antiquated parallel printer with
>> rock-bottom
>> operating costs sounds real good. Myself, I run an HP LaserJet 5 with
>> parallel
>> port, but networked. At a cost of $20 to $50 per 5000 pages for toner,
>> my
>> printing costs are hard to beat.
>
> My workhorse is an HP 6P. While I purchased an inkjet, years ago, strictly
> for
> graphics, the vast majority of my printing is B/W text, and the HP fits
> the
> bill to a tee. (I'm running it as a wireless, networked printer.)

I'm still working with a 4P. Slow as hell but reliable.

--

Rob

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:rIadnVMvu8ribbXeRVn-hw@comcast.com...
<snip> It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than parallel
(or serial) connections
Ted Zieglar not true actually serial is very fast and getting faster thats
why we have Sata disks (serial ATA) and and PCI express is serial as well

"Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
> ports (and other things).
>
> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>
> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>
> -Bruno

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <4328f9ab.58487003@nntp.charter.net>, ben_myers_spam_me_not @
charter.net (Ben Myers) says...
> Why criticize the OP's values by calling it a "quaint, antiquated parallel
> printer". If it gets the job done reliably, and the OP does not need any of the
> bells and whistles of a newer printer, why should he replace it?

I agree, with USB being so dang problematic it's a total PITA for
support people.

Yesterday we had a young lass call because her new HP printer would not
install properly, she worked with HP for 2 hours and still could not get
it to work... She had front and rear USB ports on her computer...
Symptom, installing the printer cable on the rear USB ports does not
cause the New Device service to see it.... Found that the rear USB ports
would not see anything with a USB mouse connected to it (nice HP
computer problem). Connected printer (USB) to front USB ports and it
worked fine.

I've seen Sony Vaio 12" LCD laptops that ONLY have USB for devices, we
make more in support charges in 6 months than the laptop cost the
clients due to the USB issues.

If USB only supported 1 device per port and each port was on it's own
controller, it might be OK, but it's been a PITA since the day it came
out.

While many don't see the need for Parallel, I've got several Wax Thermal
printers (Phasers) and none of the USB Print Servers I've tried work
properly with them, the Parallel ones do just fine.

--

spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Your point is well taken. We are referring to different things.

Ted Zieglar

"Fixer" <the.hedonist@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:rT8We.6477$st1.791@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rIadnVMvu8ribbXeRVn-hw@comcast.com...
> <snip> It's an industry trend. USB and 1394 are so much faster than parallel
> (or serial) connections
> Ted Zieglar not true actually serial is very fast and getting faster thats
> why we have Sata disks (serial ATA) and and PCI express is serial as well
>
> "Bruno" <myName@myISP.net> wrote in message
> news:nuqhi1hpk551v15jnq913819g87lqcgr3b@4ax.com...
>> Seems that Dell has phased out parallel ports on the Desktop PCs. The
>> 4700 is gone now, and the 5100 and 9100 are unencumbered by parallel
>> ports (and other things).
>>
>> I called Dell today to ask and they basically told me I should just
>> buy a new printer too, because my printer will probably not work on XP
>> anyway. HP says my Laserjet 4L will work.
>>
>> So what's a bloke to do? This seems a decent enough reason to buy
>> elsewhere. Is there a trend in the industry, or just Dell?
>>
>> -Bruno
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I did refer to the OP's printer as "venerable". I'm still using the 6L I bought in 1997 (for $400!). It's slow and kind of noisy, but otherwise solid as a rock.

Ted Zieglar

"Notan" <notan@ddress.com> wrote in message news:4328FD1A.70FB1850@ddress.com...
> Ben Myers wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Against this backdrop, a quaint antiquated parallel printer with rock-bottom
>> operating costs sounds real good. Myself, I run an HP LaserJet 5 with parallel
>> port, but networked. At a cost of $20 to $50 per 5000 pages for toner, my
>> printing costs are hard to beat.
>
> My workhorse is an HP 6P. While I purchased an inkjet, years ago, strictly for
> graphics, the vast majority of my printing is B/W text, and the HP fits the
> bill to a tee. (I'm running it as a wireless, networked printer.)
>
> Notan