Usb 3.0 printer ?

[jamesd1981]

I am considering getting a new all in one printer, has anyone come across any usb 3.0 models ?

I have searched all the usual retailers and can not find any, surely they have usb 3.0 connected printers by now.

 

[kobaj]

I don't think you will be able to find a USB 3.0 printer, as the printer wouldn't use the advantages gained from USB 3.0 (speed being the key advantage). External hard drives, USB nics, and other devices would use USB 3.0 speeds, but not a printer.

Are you worried a USB 2.0 printer won't work in your USB 3.0 ports? As they ARE backwords compatible.

 

[Geoff]

There is no need, printers do not require bandwidth that high.

 

[Laquer Head]

Yah, agreed. A USB3.0 printer would be completely pointless.

 

[itinernat]

Actually USB 3.0 printers would be very useful

Previous replies have ignored the fact that USB 3.0 is synchronous and bi-directional (last seen on printers with the old parallel cable for those of us who remember them).

This means that, for example, cancelling a print job on a USB 3.0 printer would no longer need a couple of pages of buffered output to be cleared before the printer stopped.
ref: http://blog.databazaar.com/2010/09/will-usb-30-speed-up-my-printer.html


USB 3.0 is almost always backward and forward compatible. The almost is because USB 2.0 port is not capable of powering a USB 3.0 Powered B device.
ref: http://www.datapro.net/techinfo/usb_3_explained.html#USB_Backwards_Compatibility


All that said, I haven't found a USB 3.0 printer yet either. I presume it is because there's no current speed improvement available - the printers themselves would need to be faster to benefit from the extra bandwidth. Also of course Win 7 SP 1 doesn't natively support USB 3.0 (you need manufacturers drivers) and the Z77 Ivy Bridge chipset with integrated support for USB 3.0 is only just out, so those could be a factor too.

Please let me know if you find a USB 3.0 printer.

 

[wolfeking]

not to say you are lying, but I do not trust the bidirectional idea. It is serial (universal serial bus) meaning that info will only go one way at a time. If it was bidirectional it would be parallel, not serial.

and blogs are only as good as the person that wrote them.

 

[Okedokey]

not to say you are lying, but I do not trust the bidirectional idea. It is serial (universal serial bus) meaning that info will only go one way at a time. If it was bidirectional it would be parallel, not serial.

and blogs are only as good as the person that wrote them.

hes right, its bi

 

[wolfeking]

ah, okay. Learn something new every day.

 

[StrangleHold]

USB 3.0 is bidirectional. Has 4 extra wires, two for transfer and two for sending. Plus USB is technical not a Bus.

 

[wolfeking]

so it is new to USB3? And is that not what USB stands for?

 

[StrangleHold]

so it is new to USB3? And is that not what USB stands for?

Thats what it stands for, got popular in the mid 90s to get rid of the Serial/parallel port. But it really runs off a Root Hub/Host. I would call it more of a interface. I think they just called it that for the simplicity of it.