Re: What is the reason for mapping a network printer instead ofsharing one?
On Jun 5, 6:07 pm, "Frankster" <Fr...@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
> <toni...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> news:b89ce16f-c1a2-4069-bcb2-fa6255afba85@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 6:07 am, "Frankster" <Fr...@SPAM2TRASH.com> wrote:
> >> <toni...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:09d4fbe0-e355-43d0-888c-4e4b1ee37ab9@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >I know this might sound stupid but I am trying to understand the
> >> > concept of why on a server they have mapped network printers but also
> >> > they have the printers installed as shares. To me I would pick one or
> >> > the other. They do not have a print server running so what would be
> >> > the benefit? Can anyone shed some light on this for me ...
> >> > Thanks
>
> >> Ask the server admin. Or clarify your question here. You access the
> >> printer
> >> you want by whatever means is available. If it is installed on your
> >> server,
> >> fine. Otherwise you might mapped to another shared printer. Whatever.
> >> Don't
> >> matter.
>
> >> You are not clear if you are talking about using the server from the
> >> keyboard to print, or simply using printers installed on the server to
> >> print
> >> from your client machine.
>
> >> -Frank
>
> > That was the reason I asked the question. There is no server admin and
> > I am working on this network with printers that are mapped and also
> > shared in the same environment. They have 9 clients connected to a
> > domain with the server functioning as a file server. There are three
> > network printers all have an IP address. The clients are 7 Vista
> > Business and 2 XP Pro. Each printer is installed on one of the clients
> > and shared. My question was asking the reason why to map the printer
> > rather then install it to each machine as a shared printer. Like I
> > said in the beginning it may be a stupid question but I am trying to
> > understand the concept, since I am always having to reinstall the
> > print driver in the Vista Machines. I thought it made a difference in
> > the way it was set up.
> > Thanks
> > Toni
>
> Okay, here are some thoughts - but you have to make up your own mind as to
> which is best for you.
>
> Ideally, you will install IP printers on each and every machine directly.
> This would assume that you don't have 200 clients, if which case the
> administration would be a lot easier on a shared bases. However, on a small
> network, installing IP printers on each and every workstation is a good
> idea. This allows the use of the printer without any other machine running.
> Non-IP printers need to be shared from the workstation where they are
> physically installed.
>
> Any shared printer will have to have its host computer running all the time
> for others to print to it.
>
> Shared printers create the spool file (file made to be sent to the printer)
> on the host machine. If someone is working on the machine physically
> connected to the printer it will slow down when someone else prints to that
> printer.
>
> Lots of choices. The answers just depend on your network and your needs.
> There is no overall good or bad way.
>
> As for installing all printers on the Server and just sharing them all
> out... some print drivers play havoc with servers because some print drivers
> have bugs that interfere with other server operations. You're a test pilot
> here. Also, the spooling will create a load on your server. This is why some
> people dedicate a server to "print server only", if their network is big
> enough to warrant it.
>
> If you install a printer on a workstation, only 10 people can connect to it
> to print due to a workstation's connection limitation. A server allows
> unlimited connections.
>
> Lots of choices... just depends.
>
> -Frank
Now that makes sense to me. Thanks Frank for the examples.
Toni