laser-lovers@uw-beaver (03/19/85)
From: Larry Seiler <Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA> Brief rebuttals to two recent comments: 1) A Laserjet CAN do multi-font printing A while ago, somebody wrote in to laser lovers to say that the HP LaserJet could handle a whopping 3 or 4 fonts per page (or some such small number). With that few fonts, you must be VERY careful of what you create. On the other hand, it was reported that the LN03 can store 23 (or some such) fonts before giving out, which is a much more reasonable limit. I'd call that a big step up. 2) Device independent laser printer format isn't necessary. Last fall, I asked someone to send me a copy of a paper that had multi-fonts. What I got was the pre-formatted version. I had never used that particular formatter before, but I gave it a try, and found out that my machine didn't have the right fonts, so I basically failed to make a reasonable copy. As a user, I didn't want to format the thing, and hunt down fonts - I just wanted to print it. If everybody used the same formatter (with the same font search list), that would be all right. If everybody used the same printer, that would be all right. Failing those, I'd like some standard format that can be printed on any laser printer (even if not optimally) and that can manage to use the right fonts without my worrying about it at all. I think that standardizing on such a format (within any given environment) is easier than standardizing on a single formatter or a single laser printer. Enjoy, Larry Seiler Seiler@MIT-XX -------
laser-lovers@uw-beaver (03/20/85)
From: Nick <NNicoll.ES@XEROX.ARPA> I think the answer to the font list problem is a trivial one of font 'name' conventions. If families of faces carry the same name, then a reasonable printer could do font substitutions and produce a reasonable printout. Perhaps the right margin would not be perfectly justified because of different Kerning, etc. between the font specified and the one actually used but if the printer knew it could substitute a Titan10 for a TitanLegal10 it could still print the document and you could read it. Usual disclaimer, these are my own opinions and have nothing to do with my employer's. \\ Nick
laser-lovers@uw-beaver (03/22/85)
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@uw-beaver.arpa > 1) A Laserjet CAN do multi-font printing > A while ago, somebody wrote in to laser lovers to say that the HP LaserJet > could handle a whopping 3 or 4 fonts per page (or some such small number). > With that few fonts, you must be VERY careful of what you create. On the > other hand, it was reported that the LN03 can store 23 (or some such) fonts > before giving out, which is a much more reasonable limit. I'd call that a > big step up. How many documents do you print that use 23 fonts on a page? Or even in the whole document? Oh sure, there are some. But an awful lot of documents are perfectly happy with one size of body type (including italics and bold) and a small scattering of other things in places like headers and equations. This, the LaserJet does fine. I've never said, and would never contend, that the LaserJet is a "full typesetting" printer. Any time you get into heavy games with fonts, the LaserJet bows out. Ditto any graphics to speak of. But for a lot of straight- text printing, it's just great, at half the cost of the competition. We ourselves want, and will probably get within a year or so, something like a LaserWriter or an Imagen to do the fancy stuff. But we'll quite probably only get one of them, and we already have five LaserJets. Unless you're into something that leans heavily on graphics or really elaborate typesetting, this is about the right ratio. Note that (assuming equal amounts of money) this way we have twice as many printers that can do most of our documents. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
laser-lovers@uw-beaver (03/22/85)
From: lucas@cmu-psy-a (pete lucas) >>>But for a lot of straight text printing, it's just great, at half >>>the cost of the competition. I thought we were comparing the LaserJet with the LN03. The difference in list prices is not "half", it is about 20% (about 33% with extra ram, not counting the price of an HP rom cartridge). For this you get: 1) downloadable fonts 2) enough font memory to print most any reasonable document, even those pages with the scattering of headers and equations along with the body fonts. 3) enough paper handling capacity such that the machine can be run without constant attention. 4) collated output in a REAL paper tray. 5) limited bitmaps at 150dpi rather than 75. 6) availability of the DEC's CompuGraphics font library. You give up: 1) the ability to manually feed odd sized paper. 2) $700. Things will no doubt be quite different in 6 months, but as of today, from my perspective the decision tree is clear: 1) if you can afford it and don't mind the limited paper handling, buy Apple. 2) if every dollar counts and if a handful of rom-resident fonts is REALLY good enough for you, buy HP. 3) else, buy LN03. -Pete P.S. -- Anybody know of other products on the way based on the Ricoh engine?
laser-lovers@uw-beaver (03/23/85)
From: John W. Peterson <JW-Peterson@UTAH-20.ARPA> The HP 2688A is based on the Ricoh engine. This is a pretty spendy item though, around $30K. It has a hefty controller (mounted in a matching desk) that supports full page raster graphics. -------
laser-lovers@uw-beaver (03/26/85)
From: ihnp4!utzoo!henry@uw-beaver.arpa > >>>But for a lot of straight text printing, it's just great, at half > >>>the cost of the competition. > I thought we were comparing the LaserJet with the LN03. The difference > in list prices is not "half", it is about 20% (about 33% with extra ram, > not counting the price of an HP rom cartridge). I was referring to the price of the Apple printer, actually; I haven't seen a Canadian LN03 price list. For that matter, I haven't seen an LN03 yet. (This is not quite such a trivial observation as it might seem, since Dec is notorious for long delivery on new products...) Note that you can get a LaserJet for noticeably less than official list price if you are willing to shop around, or so I'm told. > 2) enough font memory to print most any reasonable document, even those > pages with the scattering of headers and equations along with the body > fonts. I thought I said reasonably clearly that the LaserJet *can* print such things, and does, 20 feet from where I am typing this. This is admittedly a triumph of intelligent software over stupidly-done hardware, but it *does* *work*. > 4) collated output in a REAL paper tray. As mentioned in previous mail, this is easy to achieve on the Canon engine, although it doesn't come standard with the beast. > 5) limited bitmaps at 150dpi rather than 75. Depending on how you define "limited", the LaserJet can do this too. > 6) availability of the DEC's CompuGraphics font library. Not having seen these fonts or their prices, I'm not sure whether this is a virtue or not. There are font libraries and there are font libraries. As I've said earlier, the LaserJet is far from perfect. The feed tray is too small (although this is less of a problem than you would think, because changing paper is easy enough that users can be trusted to do it). The absence of downloadable fonts is a terrible botch, which HP is doing something about (or so I am told). And HP was very slow about decent font cartridges. On the other hand, it does a lot of things well. It's cheap. It can print any document which doesn't play really fancy font games, given suitable software support (which is not trivial). You replace much of the guts every time you change toner cartridges, which eliminates some maintenance sore spots. (Changing the drum on the LN03 may be an interesting exercise, given that Dec trumpets the infrequency of this operation as a virtue.) It's available, and has been for some time. The LaserJet, although imperfect, is under-rated. Don't write it off. Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry