USB or parallel

[curtybob]

I have an HP printer (deskjet 932C) and it has an option for using either USB or a parallel port connection. Right now I have it plugged into the parallel port. Is there any perfomance and / or functionality gains to be had thruogh using the USB connection?

[prankster]

well usb r swapable also a usb is faster than a parallel

[beeboy]

I have that printer as well. Are you using hp's drivers or the window's drivers in xp? I had it hooked up usb in ME and that printer was totally unreliable no matter what I did with hookups or drivers. It does work well in XP and linux. I suspect hp's software leaves a little to be desired as I had trouble with a scanner too. Anyone else have trouble as well?

[curtybob]

I had it running in Me with a parallel port hookup, on HP's drivers, and some tweaking as to what printing processor type it used, which I derived from using SiSoft sandra, and I had hardly any problems. When I tried to que too many jobs, it would print a bunch of jibberish, but otherwise was a good setup. Now I have Windows XP running on the PC I built for myself, and am still using HP's XP drivers, and it works just as well, but I just wanted to know if I could squeeze any more speed by using the USB connection.

[curtybob]

UPDATE:
I tested both connections- which I probably should've done in the first place. and for anyone else who needs it, there is almost no difference, except at high print quality. took 37 seconds to print 640x480 picture on parallel, and 26 seconds to print through USB. you can figure a little for error because I timed with a stopwatch, and my reflexes never got me into the olympics... if you know what I mean. So, basically, if you are short of USB ports, just use the parallel port, unless you print a lot of high quality pictures, in which case it will pay to buy either a usb card or hub.

[beeboy]

Good to know. Thanks Curty.

[Da Proffessa]

i dunno i perfer usb cause parrel are older.