Laser printer? Those expect a "end of page" character to start printing. You could also try to convince the printer by pressing its buttons...

I think you need to send PCL or PostScript data (depending on printer's installed personalities) to printer in order to properly print while redirecting LPT1 via "net use" is in effect. That's why I love my HP LS1200, because it has a common parallel port for communicating with the PC. I really hate using USB for printers. It's just PLAIN STUPID, because it breaks backwards compatibility and parallel port has always worked fine for printers. USB is nice but for anything else.

This is correct, but when I use the program in a "normal" dos box, the printer prints after a timeout of a few seconds without leaving the program.

Bernd.

Sending PCL or Postscript is not the thing. The dos program sends only ascii text. The output is OK, the only point is, that I have to leave the program.

Bernd.

send an email to the address listed on dosbox.sf.net/crew.php
stating your poblem. We might be able to help you with some experimental stuff

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

I really hate using USB for printers. It's just PLAIN STUPID, because it breaks backwards compatibility and parallel port has always worked fine for printers.

Yeah, except USB is like a gazillion times faster, and almost noone needs backwards compatibility. I like my USB printer just fine.

JAL

But do printers really take advantage of USB speeds?
Furthermore, do they need it?

eL_PuSHeR wrote:

But do printers really take advantage of USB speeds?
Furthermore, do they need it?

My budget model, 3 year old, Samsung laserprinter is about 5-10 times faster when I print via USB than via LPT. Modern printers can process data faster than the LPT port can deliver.

JAL

The sad thing is that USB printers don't use a standardized printing protocol... they all do the same thing but every model needs another driver.

h-a-l-9000 wrote:

The sad thing is that USB printers don't use a standardized printing protocol... they all do the same thing but every model needs another driver.

True, but that also goed for parallel connected printers. Remember the myriad of printer drivers that came with WP5.1, for example?

JAL

But a lot of those could still print simple text sent to LPT1 for instance.

h-a-l-9000 wrote:

But a lot of those could still print simple text sent to LPT1 for instance.

True, but that's just because of the OS's (DOS) LPT1 device, or the BIOS functions. You'd never send text directly to the hardware port, or would you? Same with USB printers, I can just use OS functions to access them, and even send plain text.

JAL

I think you do a "name of command" > PRN but I'm not sure. Don't have a LPT printer to test it with.

DosFreak wrote:

I think you do a "name of command" > PRN but I'm not sure. Don't have a LPT printer to test it with.

Yes, it was like this.

Mirek

mirekluza wrote:

DosFreak wrote:

I think you do a "name of command" > PRN but I'm not sure. Don't have a LPT printer to test it with.

Yes, it was like this.

Mirek

My point is, this is hardware abstraction by the OS. And it has very little to do with low-level access to printers. HAL9000's original remark about USB printers ("The sad thing is that USB printers don't use a standardized printing protocol... they all do the same thing but every model needs another driver.") is really about missing OS support (or at least, printing via the file interface support), and I do not see any difference there between parallel and USB printers (except for the parallel port, regardless of printers, having just that support). One would like to have a 'USBx' (where x is 1-number of USB ports) device, so you'd be able to type 'type somefile.txt > USB1', or something

JAL

Agreed. USBx: should be a reserved port name like PRN, LPTx and so on.