Brian Schram
February 29th 04, 04:25 AM
I have this EXACT same problem. I have an HP PSC 1350
printer attached to my XP machine and it is shared over my
home network with my 98 machine. I sent a document from
the 98 machine and the Status said Printing but it would
never print. The Port said USB001. When I tried to
Cancel the document it changed the Status to Deleting-
Printing and I cannot get rid of it. I spent a few hours
on the phone with HP Support and tried to (1) shutdown my
XP machine, (2) turn off my printer, and (3) unplug the
printer's USB cable from the back of the machine but
nothing works. The HP Tech rep went and spoke with her
superior and then told me that the printer would have to
be hooked up to the 98 machine instead of the XP machine
because the printer was not backward compatible. I refuse
to do that because the 98 machine is in the kitchen (no
room for a printer) and it sounded like a bunch of hooie
anyway. I was not confident at all with the HP Support
because they had originally told me I didn't need to do
the Add Printer from the 98 machine to be able to use the
printer over the network. Then they finally came around
and had me do the Add Printer. It seems that there has to
be a way that Windows can get this document out of the
queue but I haven't found it yet. The document has been
in the queue for 2 days now (and I shut down my PC at
night). If anyone finds a solution to this PLEASE let me
know.
>-----Original Message-----
>I have a printer connected to my XP machine. I have a
Win 98 system connected to the
>network, and am trying to print to the printer on the XP
machine.
>
>The print job shows up in the queue on the XP machine,
status states it is printing,
>but NEVER prints. If I try to cancel the job, it never
goes away(reboot is only way
>I can clear the queue for that printer). This has
happened with both Brother and HP
>printers on my system, and both USB and Parallel
connections, so it seems to be on the OS side.
>
>I've seen once knowledge base article that 'looked' like
it could be the solution(322303), but
>not the case.
>
>Anyone have any ideas?
>Marlene
>
>
>.
>
printer attached to my XP machine and it is shared over my
home network with my 98 machine. I sent a document from
the 98 machine and the Status said Printing but it would
never print. The Port said USB001. When I tried to
Cancel the document it changed the Status to Deleting-
Printing and I cannot get rid of it. I spent a few hours
on the phone with HP Support and tried to (1) shutdown my
XP machine, (2) turn off my printer, and (3) unplug the
printer's USB cable from the back of the machine but
nothing works. The HP Tech rep went and spoke with her
superior and then told me that the printer would have to
be hooked up to the 98 machine instead of the XP machine
because the printer was not backward compatible. I refuse
to do that because the 98 machine is in the kitchen (no
room for a printer) and it sounded like a bunch of hooie
anyway. I was not confident at all with the HP Support
because they had originally told me I didn't need to do
the Add Printer from the 98 machine to be able to use the
printer over the network. Then they finally came around
and had me do the Add Printer. It seems that there has to
be a way that Windows can get this document out of the
queue but I haven't found it yet. The document has been
in the queue for 2 days now (and I shut down my PC at
night). If anyone finds a solution to this PLEASE let me
know.
>-----Original Message-----
>I have a printer connected to my XP machine. I have a
Win 98 system connected to the
>network, and am trying to print to the printer on the XP
machine.
>
>The print job shows up in the queue on the XP machine,
status states it is printing,
>but NEVER prints. If I try to cancel the job, it never
goes away(reboot is only way
>I can clear the queue for that printer). This has
happened with both Brother and HP
>printers on my system, and both USB and Parallel
connections, so it seems to be on the OS side.
>
>I've seen once knowledge base article that 'looked' like
it could be the solution(322303), but
>not the case.
>
>Anyone have any ideas?
>Marlene
>
>
>.
>