[THIN] Re: Xerox Phaser 4400 - addendum
- From: "Rick Mack" <Rick.Mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:07:09 +1000
Hi People,
Spoke too soon.
Tried a few more and discovered that some of the win2k3 drivers need resource
files (dlls) that are in the i386 directory on the win2k3 server CD rather
than in the w2k3_drv.cab file.
For these you'll also need a windows server 2003 CD handy.
regards,
Rick
Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems
Level 2, 30 Little Cribb Street
Coronation Drive Office Park
Milton Qld 4064
tel: +61 7 32431847
fax: +61 7 32431992
rmack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Steve Parr
Sent: Fri 11/03/2005 3:51 PM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Xerox Phaser 4400
Rick is there any info. anywhere on how to "port 3rd party postscript drivers
into native format" or to "graft a postscript PPD file onto a native postscript
driver"?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Mack [mailto:Rick.Mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 7:57 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [THIN] Re: Xerox Phaser 4400
Hi Steve,
There's nothing wrong with native Postscript drivers, and it's not that hard to
port third-party postscript drivers into native format (get rid of resource
DLLs and just use ppd file). For text only printing, postscript is quite
efficient. Mix in graphics and doesn't look quite so attractive from a print
job size viewpoint.
Before I get flamed I should state that postscript can be really efficient, but
there's unfortunately a huge gap between theory and practice with most
postscript driver implementations..
I had some nasty experiences on NT4 TSE with some of the third party (eg
Xerox!!!) postscript drivers. Pain tends to be something you remember for a
long time so I can understand Stephen's tendency to PCL.
If in doubt I graft the postscript PPD file on to the native postscript driver,
and with the exception of some special features (and a possible print size
penalty), postscript is fine.
regards,
Rick
Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Steve Parr
Sent: Fri 11/03/2005 8:12 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Xerox Phaser 4400
Thanks Rick.
That takes my understanding a few notches up.
By the way are Postscript drivers that bad in comparison to PCL on Citrix.
I noticed the printer matrixes from Stefan Vermullen tend to map the PCL
drivers for
Postscript drivers which would indicate a preference to not install PS drivers
on Citrix.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Mack [mailto:Rick.Mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 4:46 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [THIN] Re: Xerox Phaser 4400
Hi,
Last things first I guess.
This is possibly a bit unfair but I think that UPDII was a stopgap until Citrix
could get the EMF printing sorted out.
The 2003 4500 driver definitely produces smaller print jobs. I suspect HP have
been reworking their drivers (at least some of them) to make them a bit more
efficient. Had one site where updating their HPLJ 4200 drivers resulted in a
70% reduction in the size of print jobs. Over the WAN this was a massive
improvement.
In terms of using 2003 drivers generically on 2000, yes it'll work, and it
certainly gives you a lot more "native" drivers to play with without worrying
about the truly awful drivers some manufacturers have turned out.
I agree with your ordering in general. The basic criteria you can use to screen
a manufacturers drivers (accept/reject, try alternatives first) are: is it a
version 3 driver, does it use unidrv.dll (Universal driver mechanism), does it
use 5 DLLs or less.
As an example, many HP printer drivers (non-PS one anyway) are unidriver-based.
Now if only they'd get rid of all the fancy (zoom etc) crap (reduce number of
resource DLLs) they'd be really good. Lexmark went through a bad patch but
they're pretty good now, Xerox, as stated are variable. A lot of others just
use variants of HP's PCL drivers.
Citrix UPDs aren't necessarily going to be better than the trusty HPLJII (which
is what UPDI is). The problem is what they do at the client end. When you see a
5 MB print job blow out to 300 MB at the client end (and hugely slow
printing!!!) then the UPD mechanism just doesn't seem as attractive. I view
Citrix UPD as a very convenient (in terms of admin input) but expensive (in
terms of WAN bandwidth) alternative.
regards,
Rick
Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems
Level 2, 30 Little Cribb Street
Coronation Drive Office Park
Milton Qld 4064
tel: +61 7 32431847
fax: +61 7 32431992
rmack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Steve Parr
Sent: Fri 11/03/2005 1:08 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: Xerox Phaser 4400
The OS is win 2000.
Do you mean replacing the HP Color LaserJet 4500 driver on the Citrix Win 2000
box(which is the UPD II driver by default) with the HP Color LaserJet 4500 from
Win 2k3 CD OR generally to use the Windows 2003 version drivers as native
drivers on the the Win2k box - eg. Lexmark Win2k3 drivers for Lexmark printers?
If I understand your email I think you are suggesting this type of ordered
preference for printing on a Win2k Citrix box:
1)For a Xerox Phaser 4400(can replace this model with any non-HP Laserjet)
first try using the Windows 2003 native driver for this Xerox printer ie. the
Xerox driver that comes on the Win2k3 CD to map to clients Xerox printer/driver.
2)Next to try would be the Win2k driver on the Win2k CD
3) If the Xerox Phaser driver not available on Win2k3 or Win2k CD download from
the manufacturer a version 3 driver for that model which can generally tell by
looking at Server properties in Printer settings to see if it says win2k driver
OR win2k and NT driver(in which case with NT is version2 and to be avoided). Is
that method of checking always foolproof? Thinking some manufacturers could be
cutting corners and claim a driver is version 3 but not actually be.
4)Use the UPD II or UPD I OR create a mapping to another HP Laserjet such as HP
LJ 4/5//8. Are the UPD's a better choice than using CMC to map to another HP
driver? I figure Citrix may have done a little extra work to make the UPD's
more stable than other hp LJ drivers, so maybe UPD's are all things being equal
going to be better choice than mapping to even the trusty HP LJ4.
The idea about using NUL: seems like a good one ...
-----Original Message-----
From: Rick Mack [mailto:Rick.Mack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2005 6:54 AM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [THIN] Xerox Phaser 4400
Hi Steve,
You didn't state whether its Windows 2000 or 2003. But native drivers are
generally a first choice, followed by aliases and UPDI/II. If it's Windows
2000, then replacing the 2000 UPDII with the 2003 drivers makes for
significantly smaller print jobs. But if you're really serious then thinprint,
simplify printing, EOL universal printer etc are much better.
However you can improve 200 prinitng options a lot by using native 2003 drivers
since 2000 and XP/2003 all use the same printer mechanism. You can port any
2003 native driver to 2000 without too much hassle.
Traditionally the Phasers have had quite good drivers (I'm still in love with
the Phaser 850 [then tektronix]). However with Xerox it depends on where the
printer comes from. If it's from Japan, the drivers are third-party and
sometimes dodgy, if from the US the drivers are generally okay. Always provided
they really are version 3 (non-kernel mode) drivers of course.
You can get a reasonable idea of the stability of a printer driver by creating
a local port to NUL: and attaching the printer to that port. Let's you test
"print" hundreds of pages/documents without killing a single tree.
regards,
Rick
Ulrich Mack
Volante Systems
________________________________
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx on behalf of Steve Parr
Sent: Wed 9/03/2005 11:19 PM
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Xerox Phaser 4400
Has anyone successfully used the native drivers successfully with XP FR3? Am
mapping HP drivers instead at moment but users want some advanced functionality
that may only work if it seems if you use the native drivers - the usual trade
off between functionality and stability.
Will version 3 Xerox Phaser 44OO drivers be stable?
********************************************************
This Weeks Sponsor: RTO Software TScale
TScale provides a cost-effective way to improve performance, capacity and
stability for thin-client servers like Citrix MetaFrame or Microsoft Terminal
Services running Windows NT, 2000 or 2003.
http://www.rtosoft.com/enter.asp?id=296
**********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thin.net/links.cfm
ThinWiki community - Excellent SBC Search Capabilities!
http://www.thinwiki.com
***********************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thin.net/citrixlist.cfm
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been
sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure
or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and indirect loss
arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed to the extent
permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been
sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure
or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and indirect loss
arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed to the extent
permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been
sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure
or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and indirect loss
arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed to the extent
permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been
sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure
or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and indirect loss
arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed to the extent
permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been
sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure
or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and indirect loss
arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed to the extent
permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been
sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use, disclosure
or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in error
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of
this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and indirect loss
arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed to the extent
permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
#####################################################################################
This e-mail, including all attachments, may be confidential or privileged.
Confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost because this e-mail has been
sent to you in error. If you are not the intended recipient any use,
disclosure or copying of this e-mail is prohibited. If you have received it in
error please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of this e-mail and any attachments. All liability for direct and
indirect loss arising from this e-mail and any attachments is hereby disclaimed
to the extent permitted by law.
#####################################################################################
Other related posts:
- » [THIN] Re: Xerox Phaser 4400 - addendum
