# Do you have a Canon LBP5000?



## ChrisM666 (Feb 13, 2009)

This is not a poll, it's a desperate plea just to find anyone who has got one of these printers to print from their Mac!

If you have one, just reply.  Please.  If you have actually got it working I'd love to know how!

MacOSX.com 'Ask a Tech' has failed to reply to this plea (twice) so maybe they're stumped too.

I have one and all my printing has to go through my Windows box...


----------



## MisterMe (Feb 13, 2009)

ChrisM666 said:


> ...
> 
> If you have one, just reply.  Please.  If you have actually got it working I'd love to know how!
> 
> ....


It is highly unlikely that anyone has your model working with a Mac. There is no opensource *CUPS* driver available. The printer requires the proprietary *Canon CAPT Printer Driver* for Linux and Unix. Some Ubuntu and OpenSUSE users have reported success. If you want to take your chances, then start here.


----------



## ChrisM666 (Feb 14, 2009)

It would seem not.  I was hoping to find _some_ who had succeeded in spite of the odds with Canon's own driver (1.70).  It's hard for me to believe that everybody gave up the ghost on it.  Maybe I'm very naive thinking that Canon got at least a bit of it right!

I logged the printer at 'debug' level, got 4 pages of entries but it all means zilch to me.  Maybe someone can interpret it and point to what might be worth tweaking?

Today I found that I can print to it from within 10.5.6 - if I boot XP in Virtualbox and print from the shared folders.  A better kludge than having a 200W MS box running just to service the printer!


----------



## ChrisM666 (Nov 30, 2009)

If any other lonely LBP5000-owning souls come upon this post, let them take heart.  I have finally got the Big Brute to run under 10.5.7 (now .8).  It happened after an OS reinstall and full update and following the Canon instructions to the letter.

I hope this good news is as uplifting to them as it was to me.  It happened some months ago, but the spirit of Christmas** got to me and I felt I had to spread these glad tidings to all. 

**
OK, thought police, 'Winter Festival of Consumption, Indigestion and Debt'.


----------



## AdrianBS (Dec 8, 2009)

Well, I'm on of those lonely souls. And under Snow Leopard, my LBP5000 is as useless as a cardboard box. Does nothing; no forum anywhere in the world seems to be able to provide answers for me!

What a waste of time and money; frustrated as all hell!


----------



## ChrisM666 (Dec 8, 2009)

That _is_ sad.  I nearly rushed off and bought Snow Leopard but got the 'never buy version 1.0' feeling and put it off.  Did your cardboard box (apt!) work under Leopard?  Many (well, some.  Not many were sold to Maccies, it seems) reported failure then, and I was overjoyed to find that it finally did.  Maybe your future is brighter in the New Year...


----------



## MisterMe (Dec 8, 2009)

ChrisM666 said:


> That _is_ sad.  I nearly rushed off and bought Snow Leopard but got the 'never buy version 1.0' feeling and put it off.  Did your cardboard box (apt!) work under Leopard?  Many (well, some.  Not many were sold to Maccies, it seems) reported failure then, and I was overjoyed to find that it finally did.  Maybe your future is brighter in the New Year...


You are conflating unrelated issues. The issue with the Canon LBP-5000 is not a bug that will be fixed in the next update. The issue is that Canon provides poor support for OSes other than Windows. This issue will not be resolved for a while yet. Apple has supported *CUPS* for the better part of the decade and now owns the technology. Yet Canon has yet to transition its driver development to *CUPS*. The open source effort so far has produced a driver that works mostly. You can find a *CUPS* driver for the Canon LBP-5000 here.


----------



## ChrisM666 (Dec 9, 2009)

I know all that and I execrate Canon too.  Had I been aware of their ignoring SL Macs I would have 'publicly' not bought their photographic products recently.

The quoted CUPS/OPD page for the LPD5000 is annoyingly undated and reads like it did when first I looked at it over a year ago, making it, too, untrustworthy, seemingly unmaintained.  I change-date entry would be handy.


----------

