Using a Print Server enables a scalability of management and administration:
• add/change/remove a printer centrally (greater transparency to users)
• jobs are queued and printed in the order they were sent by users
• errors in print jobs can be handled centrally by the administrators (should be delegated to printer operators otherwise the sysadmin must do it all)
• print jobs are handed off to another system to process thus freeing local resources on user workstations
Not using a Print Server potentially means in your case, 75 times as much work. It depends on the users in question:
• Errors in print jobs must be dealt with locally. If the users cannot cope then you need to either Remote Control their system or visit them
• Add/Change/Remove printer must be done at each workstation (e.g. new drivers required for new printer must be installed on all workstations)
• when the printer is busy, all users wait to print - when the printer is free, the next job it takes is from whichever waiting workstation gets in first. Those workstations with faster response times to the printer will always get in first and marking a job as urgent is only relevant to the local workstation and not the print queue in general.
If you have a very small number of users (e.g. home network), then the overhead on a print server is probably not worth it.
I once worked for a hospital. When Finance got a new system, the users also got new PCs and management agreed to pay the extra for NT4 licences rather than Win95 for greater stability. However, they refused to buy an NT server licence or allow the creation of a domain from which to manage the users. This is the only time in business in which I have stuck with direct IP Printing.