You didn’t tell us the brand and model of the printer.
The important factor here is the printer memory size. This memory is shared between the data received from the computer, the computing temporaries to decode the stream and the raster image. At 600 dpi, an 8.5"×11" page is ~33 Mpixels which means the printer will probably use “banding” technology to avoid putting too much stress on memory. Also, the complete code for a page is needed before beginning to process a page. Usually printer drop page code after printing the page.
This means that unless you request to print all page copies immediately (collate option), the document is printed and its code has disappeared at end of the job, even if it is one-page long only, requiring the driver to send again the stream.
And as @mikekaganski already pointed out, this is an optimisation management issue handled by the driver. What is your printer? Which “language” does it understand? PostScript, PDF, a vendor one like PCL ? Translation from LO output to printer language may introduce an extra step which changes everything.
As I already explained numerous times:
LO is using this command, it is in a stream of data sent to the printer, BUT IT IS SET TO 1.
So, if one wants to print 22 copies, instead of sending ONE page followed with a command to print it 22 times, LO sends 22 times said page followed by command to print it 1 time!
Did you even read my questions?
I, also already, wrote Collate option is greyed-out!
Why are you writing about that when I already wrote:
LO is using this command, it is in a stream of data sent to the printer, BUT IT IS SET TO 1.
So, if one wants to print 22 copies, instead of sending ONE page followed with a command to print it 22 times, LO sends 22 times said page followed by command to print it 1 time!
?
Why are you writing that when said faulty behaviour can be LOs OR drivers?
I dont understand?
The “it is in a stream of data sent to the printer, BUT IT IS SET TO 1” that you repeat many times, is not questioned by others. We do believe that when you look at the PRN file that you got from “Print to file”, you really saw that “1” in the data.
But what you obviously do not understand is that your claim “this means that LO is using this command” is simply wrong: the implication is not correct. It only means that driver uses this command, after translating the GDI commands from LibreOffice into the given printer language (taking into account the internal knowledge of the printer capabilities, like those listed by @ajlittoz already: e.g., if the driver got a request “print this single page 22 times”, and after processing, the data of the single page exceeds the printer memory, then it simply can’t send the whole data to the printer and request “print it 22 times”, because it won’t fit into the printer memory; then it would convert the request into “print this page once, then print this copy once, …” - just to allow the printer to process half-a-page, flush, process the other half, and then get the first half again).
I write this exactly because I read the LibreOffice code, and I know what it does. And if you don’t understand it, doesn’t mean that others don’t read your explanations. Before “not blaming” others as you do, first make an assumption that it’s you who misinterpreted the others’ constructive replies.
Then print data will be sent to the driver as many times as the number of copies. Now why this is grayed out must be found. It may be a limitation of the printer driver. LO does not make any assumption about the printer (except it can print). It interrogates the driver about the capabilities and adjusts the dialog according to the response.
SO, once again, which is your printer (brand, model and connection mode: Wi-Fi, USB, Ethernet, serial link, …)? And possibly, driver version? If it is not an “exotic” model, collation disabled box is not normal.
Be respectful to contributors: we are users just like you and we already spent an appreciable amount of time on your problem, being totally blind as you persist in refusing to provide factual technical data. We sympathise to your inconvenience but we can’t remote-debug without assistance from you. What we request don’t impact your privacy.
I already wrote you are thinking against me…
For the n-th time:
LO is using this command, it is in a stream of data sent to the printer, BUT IT IS SET TO 1.
So, if one wants to print 22 copies, instead of sending ONE page followed with a command to print it 22 times, LO sends 22 times said page followed by command to print it 1 time!
What that also means is that I ALREADY TRIED WITH A FILE OF 20 KILOBYTES (YES, KILOBYTES) AND CHANGING THAT COMMANDS PARAMETER AT THE END OF A FILE TO 3 GOT ME 3 COPIES!
IF I REQUEST 3 COPIES FROM LO, I GET A FILE OF 60 KILOBYTES!
SO, DO YOU AND @ajlittoz FINALLY UNDERSTAND YOURE ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND THIS HASNT ANYTHING TO DO WITH PRINTER MEMORY?
I (as anybody else) dont need lectures about SIMPLE concepts, I need solution to the problem.
"LO is not the culprit" is not a solution (more so because it could be the culprit).
Be it drivers or LOs fault the solution would be - do this to a printer, driver, LO… and you get your speed back (and not endeless tirade about simple concepts).
PLEASE, PLEASE, show me what was constructive in any of the replies?
THERE IS NOT ONE SUGGESTION OF A RESOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM!
Follow the link I gave. These details are requested for all questions.
No. Don’t repeat the same insufficient information and expect us to find detail that isn’t there.
As I can see that you are too important to answer requests for information I am out of here.
Not quite correct. LibreOffice also queries the driver how many collated copies it can handle; and if the requested number is not larger than the capability, it would also send just one copy. It’s at this code.
Hm, MikeK, nice to see you can be friendly.
But, its not “not quite correct” - its completely wrong.
Youre wrong, it will not!
It was grayed out until I typed a no of copies >1 AND left the field.
So, I tried with collate options enabled and THE RESULT IS THE SAME
.
A constructive reply is not only the one that provides a direct answer, but anything that helps toward getting such an answer.
So:
#2 from @ve3oat had a constructive suggestion before the edit, to use “number of copies” hidden under “more”, which could be a reasonable suggestion, given the lack of any details in your question. We see users with vastly different background and computer skills.
After the edit, it contains a constructive question, aimed to understand your case better. Also it provides some background bits, which could possibly help you understand the observations.
#6 from @ve3oat told you that your replies look angry and unfriendly; also it constructively asked for details about LO version and printer.
#9 from @ve3oat constructively suggested you that possibly a bug report is needed; also it welcomed you as a part of the community.
#10 from @Ratslinger constructively shown you the screenshots proving (no matter if you do not understand the reasoning behind) that at least in some cases, LO does send the count to the driver, so the claim that LibreOffice generally does not is not correct. This indirectly enforced the need for more details from you.
#11 from @EarnestAl constructively tried to guess the missing detail about your OS and a printer driver, and asked if you can test if changing some settings helps. Also it provided a link explaining how to ask good questions, e.g. what details are required as a minimum.
#12 (from me), again, had to guess if you are talking about “number of copies” in the Print dialog, or about the “mail merge” nature of the labels feature in LibreOffice, when it could depend on the number of database records behind the MM document.
#17 from @ajlittoz constructively repeated the need to know the details about your printer, and again mentioned that collation could also be the problem here.
#25 from @ajlittoz, again, constructively and politely told you about the missing data.
But:
#3: rude “Say what? 10 chars” from you.
#4: impatient and unfriendly “Oh, man!? … Do you understand now?” from you.
#5: “Youre theorizing … Do you understand now?” from you, with the first “LO is using this command” ungrounded claim.
#7: “Man, have you even read what I wrote?” from you.
#13: “Are you blind or just malicious?” from you.
#15: “Why are you writing about ASKED DETAILS when even you didnt ask for them? Wasnt this detailed enough for you:” from you.
#16: “I am not blaming anybody, let alone left and right, its just you are clueless about the topic and shouldnt have wasted our time writing irrelevant stuff” from you (what a nice mutually exclusive phrases in one sentence).
#18: the arrogant “I examined the stream of data sent to the printer and you are measuring by “blink of an eye”? It “looks” that to you? Really?” from you toward someone trying to help.
#22: “Did you even read my questions?” from you.
Now to the constructive pieces that you provided:
- Im printing labels on a label printer (in the initial question).
- LO version is last stable - 7462 (in
#8, accompanied by the arrogant “but that wont help”, telling others that you definitely know what information the others need to answer). - TYPE THE NUMBER OF COPIES AND PRESS PRINT (in
#13). - its WIndows; (Collate) Cant - its greyed out (
#15, the latter turned out to be false in#30). - I PRINTED TO FILE AND EXAMINED IT (
#19, at last told where your beliefs are rooted). - I ALREADY TRIED WITH A FILE OF 20 KILOBYTES (
#26, the first time when we learn that at least, it’s not the memory size of (still unknown) printer - but actually not: it’s a feature of “print to file”, which looks like always converts number of copies into copies of data - just tested from different software, e.g. MS Word; looks like Windows is conservative when saving to file, possibly to allow the file used with a hypothetical printer with less memory).
That’s all. No details that were asked several times. No respect to people wasting their time trying to help you.
Now who would ever want to persist helping such a person? I just put it here, and bookmark, to have a ready example how not to ask question.
A comment on @mikekaganski’s point 6.: the only way to know what is actually sent to the printer is to use a tool like WireShark provided the printer is connected via a “monitorable” interface (which we still have not idea about) .
Stop everything, please.
My diagnosis is that the OP is a troll and only wants argue endlessly, and that, while others of us have tried to help, it is to no avail. This “debate” in pointless.