Question about sharing printer through OS X
I have been with Windows for years and just bought my first mac, a C2D MBP a couple months ago. Later this year I plan to upgrade my main desktop computer which I use as a server to a Mac Pro. I currently have a Brother printer/copier/fax machine combo that is hooked up to my Windows XP desktop and set up to share across the network which works great when printing from my MBP through the network. When I switch this over to OS X will I still be able to share it across the network? It is a USB printer.
One reason I ask this is I'm very interested in the new airport express base station. The only thing I dont' like is it doesn't support gigabit LAN. Yet I figure one way around that is to get the Mac Pro with Wi-Fi installed which I assume (I'm waiting for next generation) will have n networking. That'll take care of the 100mbps bottleneck. I am looking at other brands of routers though which in many cases include gigabit lan. They don't include the usb port though which I'm very interested in for the printer.
One reason I ask this is I'm very interested in the new airport express base station. The only thing I dont' like is it doesn't support gigabit LAN. Yet I figure one way around that is to get the Mac Pro with Wi-Fi installed which I assume (I'm waiting for next generation) will have n networking. That'll take care of the 100mbps bottleneck. I am looking at other brands of routers though which in many cases include gigabit lan. They don't include the usb port though which I'm very interested in for the printer.
Comments
I have been with Windows for years and just bought my first mac, a C2D MBP a couple months ago. Later this year I plan to upgrade my main desktop computer which I use as a server to a Mac Pro. I currently have a Brother printer/copier/fax machine combo that is hooked up to my Windows XP desktop and set up to share across the network which works great when printing from my MBP through the network. When I switch this over to OS X will I still be able to share it across the network? It is a USB printer.
Yes, USB printer sharing is very easy even amongst Windows users. Using Bonjour for Windows makes it painless.
The only thing I dont' like is it doesn't support gigabit LAN. Yet I figure one way around that is to get the Mac Pro with Wi-Fi installed which I assume (I'm waiting for next generation) will have n networking. That'll take care of the 100mbps bottleneck. I am looking at other brands of routers though which in many cases include gigabit lan. They don't include the usb port though which I'm very interested in for the printer.
Why do you need gigabit ethernet on your router if you have a wireless network? Also, a Mac Pro in place of a router is a bit much when you can easily use a Mini, which also has gigabit ethernet and I'm sure will one day get 802.11n.
Why do you need gigabit ethernet on your router if you have a wireless network?
Because, best practices of networking says always use wired connection wherever possible. A hard wired network, whether coper/fiber is always preferable to wireless. Marvin, by the logic of your question, why did Apple include a LAN port at all?
There's NO excuse for Apple to have put less than Gigabit LAN on the new Aiprort Extreme. That was one dumb ass move! WTF were they thinking????
Because, best practices of networking says always use wired connection wherever possible. A hard wired network, whether coper/fiber is always preferable to wireless. Marvin, by the logic of your question, why did Apple include a LAN port at all?
There's NO excuse for Apple to have put less than Gigabit LAN on the new Aiprort Extreme. That was one dumb ass move! WTF were they thinking????
So, according to these best practices, releasing the Aiprort (sic) Extreme was one dumb ass move! WTF were they thinking??? Releasing that wireless network. Best practices! coper(sic)/fiber is ALWAYS preferable!
If you want to build a wired network, you can do it on the cheap. No one who buys an Airport is going to do this.
Also, even FiOS can't even come close to saturating Gigabit Ethernet (depending on your Wifi connection, it'll probably just saturate 802.11n). At it's theoretical peak, it's 500 Mbit. This plan isn't available yet, but it's gonna be in the $3-500 A MONTH range.
When you have your own, dedicated OC-48 connection, then feel free to talk about how slow the Airport Extreme is.
So, according to these best practices, releasing the Aiprort (sic) Extreme was one dumb ass move! WTF were they thinking??? Releasing that wireless network. Best practices! coper(sic)/fiber is ALWAYS preferable!
If you want to build a wired network, you can do it on the cheap. No one who buys an Airport is going to do this.
Also, even FiOS can't even come close to saturating Gigabit Ethernet (depending on your Wifi connection, it'll probably just saturate 802.11n). At it's theoretical peak, it's 500 Mbit. This plan isn't available yet, but it's gonna be in the $3-500 A MONTH range.
When you have your own, dedicated OC-48 connection, then feel free to talk about how slow the Airport Extreme is.
Your argument takes only "internet" into consideration. Well, consider one wants to plug a USB drive into the Airport Extreme for filesharing - not that I would do that, as that is no answer to a true NAS/SAN. But yea, for those who do want to do that their throughput will be limited by the 100Mbps port.
Your argument takes only "internet" into consideration. Well, consider one wants to plug a USB drive into the Airport Extreme for filesharing - not that I would do that, as that is no answer to a true NAS/SAN. But yea, for those who do want to do that their throughput will be limited by the 100Mbps port.
Your ranting ignores the fact that no retard would spend $200 on a wireless router to use it as a wired router that could be had for $100.
Your ranting ignores the fact that no retard would spend $200 on a wireless router to use it as a wired router that could be had for $100.
I have no idea what you mean by that. ??? $100 vs $200? What are you talking about?
The *vast* majority of people are never going to come close to saturating Gb Enet. The Airport Extreme and Apple TV are aimed at consumers, not IT professionals.
He means that you can go get a Gigabit Enet router (no WiFi) for $100, tops, and just use that if you're concerned about the cabled LAN speed. Hang the Airport Extreme off of it, and you've got your 802.11N + Gb LAN. Or, forego the WiFi completely if you're convinced that cable is just plain always the way to go, and save yourself $100.
The *vast* majority of people are never going to come close to saturating Gb Enet. The Airport Extreme and Apple TV are aimed at consumers, not IT professionals.
What about if I wanted a USB hard drive plugged into my router?
The main point, though, is that Apple gets so close to perfection on their products and then does some hair-brain stupid thing to neuter the product. It just totally pisses me off.
...The *vast* majority of people are never going to come close to saturating Gb Enet. The Airport Extreme and Apple TV are aimed at consumers, not IT professionals.
Then why is Gigabit ethernet standard on all Macs now - even the consumer machines???
So if you want a USB drive plugged into the router, get a router that supports it. Geez. Look, if the Airport Extreme doesn't offer what you want, don't buy it. Figure out the features you need/want, and go get the device that offers them, or the best tradeoffs.
While the lack of Gb Enet may be disappointing to you, it's not going to kill sales of the Airport Extreme. Look at it this way - people are going to buy it for 802.11N support. That's it. That's why you buy it. If you don't want that, you go get a much much cheaper router. 802.11N can't come *CLOSE* to swamping Gb, so any Gb port on it is going to be underutilized through the WiFi, and badly.
This isn't a general purpose router, really, this is a WiFi access point that happens to have a medium-class router in it. Capice?
Anyone running a serious Gb network isn't going to be looking at this sort of device for a primary router. It's a WAP. It hangs off of the main LAN, and provides an access point into it. Putting a Gb port on it would be useless, since it'll never USE the bandwidth.