Digital BW, The Print

I do have a 2nd computer, yes. Bear in mind I'm on Macs so it may work a bit
differently on the PC platform, though I'm sure there are plenty of folks
here who can enlighten us. I work on a G3 but have the 2200 hooked up to an
old Mac 9500, a circa 1996 120mhz CPU. They meet in the middle at an
Ethernet hub. So I work off of the G3 and hit print and it sends the file to
the 9500 in just a minute or so (depending on file size, of course), thus
completely freeing up my G3 and me to move on. If I run down to the basement
and look at the 9500, the standard Epson print status window pops up and the
file starts chugging away just as if I'd sent the job from that desktop. The
2200 is attached to the 9500 by the USB port; I don't know if you can share
via FireWire. I'll find that out one of these days. All the color space
print driver settings etc. are done on the G3 when you print; the 9500 just
passes the job along. There is no difference in the print sent through the
shared feature vs. directly from the 'tethered' computer. All of this was
done with the standard Epson install; I just selected the "share this
printer" feature when I did the set-up from the 9500. Similarly, I had to
install the Epson software on the G3; once that was done, I go to the
"chooser" (the Mac printer selection method) on the G3, pick the "shared
2200" and that's it. Ethernet makes things work, of course. The 'sending'
machine would not free up particularly quickly if I were using a slower
network like LocalTalk. In my case, I'm using old fashioned 10mps ethernet,
not 100, but it's plenty fast enough even for big photos. If you can swing a
switch and 100base ethernet instead of a hub and 10, I would imagine the
multi-gigahertz monsters of today from either camp would send that file to
the "tethered" computer lickety-split. I think any cpu you'd buy today would
have 100mps ethernet. The weak link would be the older CPU you use to push
the 2200 -- if it's 10, then that's the speed at which the info will travel.
As I've said, though, I've found that plenty fast enough.

Cheers,
Matthew

On 12/19/02 4:51 AM, "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com"
<DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> Matthew Born:  Do you have a separate computer for the 2200?   As a novice I
> am in a quandary about image editing while the printer is processing.  I
> have a second, networked computer, but  as I am planing to upgrade to XP  I
> should make better choices now.

--