Windows Terminal Server Printing Access Reports

[IC_Clearly]

I'm running Server 2003 and wonder how well WTS works when printing an
Access report to a client. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Thanks.

IC

[Trevor Best]

IC_Clearly wrote:

I'm running Server 2003 and wonder how well WTS works when printing an
Access report to a client. Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Works like a charm. Almost instant here, I just upgraded a Win2000 WTS
to 2003 for just this reason, in 2K thew printing was sloooooooooooow.

--
[OO=00=OO]

[David W. Fenton]

Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in
news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk:

IC_Clearly wrote:

I'm running Server 2003 and wonder how well WTS works when
printing an Access report to a client. Any suggestions would be
appreciated.

Works like a charm. Almost instant here, I just upgraded a Win2000
WTS to 2003 for just this reason, in 2K thew printing was
sloooooooooooow.

Keep in mind that the printer drivers for the local printer have to
be installed on the Terminal Server. For legacy printers, Win2K3
Server will ship with them already there. If you have an older
printer, though, there may be no driver.

I don't know exactly what happens.

You might be able to trick the Terminal Server into using an older
driver by creating a printer on your local machine that that uses an
older printer driver. The Terminal Server would then use it's legacy
driver. You wouldn't get the latest features of your spiffy new
printer, but at least you'd be able to print.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[David W. Fenton]

Trevor Best <no****@besty.org.uk> wrote in
news:42**********************@news.zen.co.uk:

IC_Clearly wrote:

I'm running Server 2003 and wonder how well WTS works when
printing an Access report to a client. Any suggestions would be
appreciated.

Works like a charm. Almost instant here, I just upgraded a Win2000
WTS to 2003 for just this reason, in 2K thew printing was
sloooooooooooow.

Oh, BTW, the Citrix Metaframe extensions are what enabled this on
Win2K, since that was not included with it. In Win2K3 Server, it's
included.

I wonder how much Citrix regrets licensing their technology to MS,
since it looks to me like MS is eating Citrix's lunch.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Trevor Best]

David W. Fenton wrote:

Keep in mind that the printer drivers for the local printer have to
be installed on the Terminal Server. For legacy printers, Win2K3
Server will ship with them already there. If you have an older
printer, though, there may be no driver.
Yes, I had this problem with Win2K
I don't know exactly what happens.
In Win2K you just didn't get your own printer as a choice to print to if
the driver wasn't installed ('bout 99% of printers then :-)
You might be able to trick the Terminal Server into using an older
driver by creating a printer on your local machine that that uses an
older printer driver. The Terminal Server would then use it's legacy
driver. You wouldn't get the latest features of your spiffy new
printer, but at least you'd be able to print.

http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=243552 maybe the same in 2K3.

--
[OO=00=OO]

[Rick Brandt]

Trevor Best wrote:

David W. Fenton wrote:

Keep in mind that the printer drivers for the local printer have to
be installed on the Terminal Server. For legacy printers, Win2K3
Server will ship with them already there. If you have an older
printer, though, there may be no driver.

Yes, I had this problem with Win2K

I don't know exactly what happens.

In Win2K you just didn't get your own printer as a choice to print to
if the driver wasn't installed ('bout 99% of printers then :-)

What we did with older versions was used a mapping file (this might have been a
Citrix feature). The file basically was a substitution list (when the client
has this printer driver, substitute this older one). For all of our printer we
were always able to map to an older driver that would work for basic printing.

On our newer terminal server we are using "Simplify Printing" which actually
uses the client printer driver with no installation on the server at all. As
with most things, it solves many problems, but introduces a few of its own.

I always warn that while TS technology has some benefits it is NOT trouble free
except in cases where the necessary functionality is fairly basic.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[David W. Fenton]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:M8*****************@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m:

Trevor Best wrote:

David W. Fenton wrote:

> Keep in mind that the printer drivers for the local printer
> have to be installed on the Terminal Server. For legacy
> printers, Win2K3 Server will ship with them already there. If
> you have an older printer, though, there may be no driver.
Yes, I had this problem with Win2K

> I don't know exactly what happens.

In Win2K you just didn't get your own printer as a choice to
print to if the driver wasn't installed ('bout 99% of printers
then :-)

What we did with older versions was used a mapping file (this
might have been a Citrix feature). The file basically was a
substitution list (when the client has this printer driver,
substitute this older one). For all of our printer we were always
able to map to an older driver that would work for basic printing.

On our newer terminal server we are using "Simplify Printing"
which actually uses the client printer driver with no installation
on the server at all. As with most things, it solves many
problems, but introduces a few of its own.

That's a Citrix add-on, though, right?
I always warn that while TS technology has some benefits it is NOT
trouble free except in cases where the necessary functionality is
fairly basic.

I'm a big fan of avoiding purchasing the Citrix add-ons if you can
get by without it. I just don't see much value in them now that
Win2K3 Server is out.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
dfenton at bway dot net http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

[Rick Brandt]

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:M8*****************@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m:

Trevor Best wrote:

David W. Fenton wrote:

> Keep in mind that the printer drivers for the local printer
> have to be installed on the Terminal Server. For legacy
> printers, Win2K3 Server will ship with them already there. If
> you have an older printer, though, there may be no driver.

Yes, I had this problem with Win2K

> I don't know exactly what happens.

In Win2K you just didn't get your own printer as a choice to
print to if the driver wasn't installed ('bout 99% of printers
then :-)

What we did with older versions was used a mapping file (this
might have been a Citrix feature). The file basically was a
substitution list (when the client has this printer driver,
substitute this older one). For all of our printer we were always
able to map to an older driver that would work for basic printing.

On our newer terminal server we are using "Simplify Printing"
which actually uses the client printer driver with no installation
on the server at all. As with most things, it solves many
problems, but introduces a few of its own.

That's a Citrix add-on, though, right?

It's a third party product. Whether it's a third party product that requires
Citrix I don't know, but I believe that's correct.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Steven Zuch]

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7t*****************@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m...

David W. Fenton wrote:

"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:M8*****************@newssvr11.news.prodigy.co m:

<snip>

> On our newer terminal server we are using "Simplify Printing"
> which actually uses the client printer driver with no installation
> on the server at all. As with most things, it solves many
> problems, but introduces a few of its own.

That's a Citrix add-on, though, right?

It's a third party product. Whether it's a third party product that
requires Citrix I don't know, but I believe that's correct.

What is the name of the product?

I have several employees who have these home all-in one printers which
drivers are a nightmare. One of them, made by HP, actually requires .NET
foundation for a printer driver!!!

Steven Zuch

[Rick Brandt]

Steven Zuch wrote:

What is the name of the product?

I have several employees who have these home all-in one printers which
drivers are a nightmare. One of them, made by HP, actually requires
.NET foundation for a printer driver!!!

As stated, "Simplify Printing" or "Simplified Printing" or similar.

--
I don't check the Email account attached
to this message. Send instead to...
RBrandt at Hunter dot com

[Trevor Best]

Steven Zuch wrote:

I have several employees who have these home all-in one printers which
drivers are a nightmare. One of them, made by HP, actually requires .NET
foundation for a printer driver!!!

Speaking of HP drivers, I bought an inkjet for SHMBO to connect to her
Thinkpad, an old one with a 233MHz Pentium. The driver refused to
install stating it requires 500MHz or more. I had a 500MHz PIII laying
around and an old box with a 233MHz CPU in, I swapped the CPU out and
connected the printer.

The driver said it will work but not very well, your CPU is 499MHz and
we recommend 500MHz but a minimum of 233MHz, guess it must have thought
the Thinkpad was 232MHz.

--
[OO=00=OO]

[MLH]

That's a heck of a note! I thought HP would-a-been a little better
than that.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Speaking of HP drivers, I bought an inkjet for SHMBO to connect to her
Thinkpad, an old one with a 233MHz Pentium. The driver refused to
install stating it requires 500MHz or more. I had a 500MHz PIII laying
around and an old box with a 233MHz CPU in, I swapped the CPU out and
connected the printer.

The driver said it will work but not very well, your CPU is 499MHz and
we recommend 500MHz but a minimum of 233MHz, guess it must have thought
the Thinkpad was 232MHz.