View Full Version : Tricky - Win2K not printing to network lptx: ports

12-02-2003, 06:44 PM
This is weird, never seen it before. A machine just won't print to any of seven lpt ports.

A simple command like :

copy file.txt lpt2:

just won't work, says device not recognized.

however, this:

copy file.txt lpt2

works without the colon. So the printers are there, connected, and working. Test prints from windows do too, but the app that is the problem does use Windows printing. The Dos software that needs to work just doesn't see a port at all. I think it insists on the colon being there.

Never seen this as a problem before. Type "net use" and the ports are all OK.

Anyone have any suggestions?

12-02-2003, 09:34 PM
Try reconfiguring your parallel port number to something else, this can be done in the Device Manager.

Right click on it and go properties. Then adjust it under Port Settings.

Try that and then re-install the printer.



13-02-2003, 12:15 AM
Sorry Robo but you seem to contradict yourself in reguards of the colon. I can't remember what the colon does in dos but the pipe symbol is a different story.

13-02-2003, 06:52 AM
What I mean is this. In Win 9x and everything else, ever, you needed the colon for the printer to print. But on this machine, the only way to get it to print is without the colon. Hence it is the opposite of normality and that is why the Dos app fails as it inserts the colon.

13-02-2003, 08:50 AM
Must be a win2K special :| - Both LPt1 and LPT1: work as printer destinations under XP

13-02-2003, 09:11 AM
Win9x & Win2k are different.

Same with

type xyz.txt > lpt1

works in both 9x & NT/2k.
Win2k only emulates a Dos prompt. It is actually a Windows NT command console of sorts. MS-DOS is pretty much dead. Although its still an extremely useful tool.

Is the dos app a .bat file?

Graham L
13-02-2003, 01:14 PM
An odd DOS thing was that you couldn't make a file with the same name as one of the "standard devices" (AUX, CON, LPT, PRN, NUL, COM, ..). Copying a file to LPT.TXT (for printing later) would go straight to the printer. It was documented, somewhere. But since "real programmers never read documentation :D), it caused a lot of bad language and headbanging.

When I saw your original posting, robo, I thought it might be something to do with NT style security (multi-user, so "users" can't be allowed to access I/O devices directly), but the command line isn't the same as direct access to I/O.

Must be just one of those things. "It's not strange, it's software."