drs@bnl.ARPA (David R. Stampf) (01/28/88)
I've seen the atari laser printer at the local stores and I have a few questions that the salespeople have not been able to handle. First - does it make a great deal of sense to by the laser engine for $2K when right next to it is an HP going for $1.7K, which has .5 Meg of memory, and the ability to upgrade it to almost anything. (Postscript included). Is the quality of the Atari Laser so great as to outweigh all other factors? Second - consider the following two scenarios. I buy a mono-mega4 and an atari laser printer for $4.5K, and lets say Word Perfect, a page publishing program. -or- I buy a mono-ST for .9K and a AST Turbo Laser for $3K -> for a total of $3.9K. I have the same software. It seems to me that the second system is a BIG win. The laser has 3Meg of memory, 35 fonts, postscript, and a serial and parallel port so that it can be used with other computers. Most importantly, it seems to me that when one of the programs I use composes a page, I send it to the printer and let it worry about the printing - I get the ST back to do some useful work - essentially multitasking my home system (NO FLAMES!). I've seen more systems sitting at dealerships doing nothing but composing a page and otherwise being as useful as a doorstop. It also saves $600 - enough to buy a hardi disk. Anyone care to point out the error in my thinking? < dave stampf
GASPARD@HROEUR5.BITNET (02/03/88)
>First - does it make a great deal of sense to by the laser engine for >$2K when right next to it is an HP going for $1.7K, which has .5 Meg of >memory, and the ability to upgrade it to almost anything. (Postscript >included). Is the quality of the Atari Laser so great as to outweigh >all other factors? > >Second - consider the following two scenarios. I buy a mono-mega4 and >an atari laser printer for $4.5K, and lets say Word Perfect, a page >publishing program. > >-or- >I buy a mono-ST for .9K and a AST Turbo Laser for $3K -> for a total of >$3.9K. >I have the same software. I'm using the Atari laser for about two months now and I find it wonderfull. Just compare its 'black' with most other lasers. But let me ask you same questions: Do you have a 'GDOS'-printerdriver for the AST-turbo-laser? Can you make a screendump to the AST-laser? The programs that you have or you'll have in the future, are they supporting the AST-laser? Do you have a 'epson'-emulator for the AST-laser? (a German-company is selling one for the Atari-laser) I think, if you are sure you don't sell your ST in the near future, you will be better of with the Atari laser. I'm very sure some smart company will make a RS232- or centronics- interface for the Atari-laser. I'm sure some smart guy will write a fonteditor for the Atari-laser. I agree, it's sometimes a wast of time waiting to get the ST back when the laser is printing. Bert Rozenberg Dutch ST-foundation.
drs@bnl.ARPA (David R. Stampf) (02/03/88)
In article <8802021704.AA24124@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> GASPARD@HROEUR5.BITNET writes: >>First - does it make a great deal of sense to by the laser engine for >>$2K when right next to it is an HP going for $1.7K, which has .5 Meg of >>memory, and the ability to upgrade it to almost anything. (Postscript >>included). Is the quality of the Atari Laser so great as to outweigh >>all other factors? >> >>Second - consider the following two scenarios. I buy a mono-mega4 and >>an atari laser printer for $4.5K, and lets say Word Perfect, a page >>publishing program. >> >>-or- >>I buy a mono-ST for .9K and a AST Turbo Laser for $3K -> for a total of >>$3.9K. >>I have the same software. > > >I'm using the Atari laser for about two months now and I find it >wonderfull. Just compare its 'black' with most other lasers. > I did, and I wasn't terribly impressed - but then it could have been a lot of other factors including that the salesman didn't show it off to its best advantage. >But let me ask you same questions: > >Do you have a 'GDOS'-printerdriver for the AST-turbo-laser? Who cares - I haven't seen GDOS out of atari yet and I won't spend $2000 to get it. >Can you make a screendump to the AST-laser? I've taken a total of 2 screen dumps - mostly to see if the printer was hooked up. That isn't what I want a laser printer for. >The programs that you have or you'll have in the future, are they >supporting the AST-laser? Since the AST runs postscript, I would imagine that the number of programs that support it far outnumber those that support the Atari Laser. In addition, there are a lot of folks out there who know postscript. It simply blows away all other page description languages (in my opinion!) >Do you have a 'epson'-emulator for the AST-laser? (a German-company is >selling one for the Atari-laser) Maybe I'm missing the point, but why buy a printer that costs an order of magnitude more than the epson so I can emulate the epson? The epson is a simple printer and anyone who can write a program around a finite state machine can write an emulator for it. >I think, if you are sure you don't sell your ST in the near future, you >will be better of with the Atari laser. >I'm very sure some smart company will make a RS232- or centronics- >interface for the Atari-laser. Well don't hold your breath, but I would not care to add $200 to an already overpriced printer to make it useful to other machines - besides, since the Atari laser has NO memory, the interface would have to run at a speed matching the construction of the image - I don't know that the serial line can do it, and even the Centronics may be too slow. (A full graphics page takes about 2 minutes to download at 9600 baud - that's why you want the printer to have some smarts and build the image itself.) >I'm sure some smart guy will write a fonteditor for the Atari-laser. > >I agree, it's sometimes a wast of time waiting to get the ST back when >the laser is printing. > And paying double for the privilege is a real insult. > >Bert Rozenberg >Dutch ST-foundation. Had this printer had a street price of < $1K, it would be a deal, but at double that ... Sorry. < dave.
cyliax@ea.ecn.purdue.edu (Ingo Cyliax) (02/05/88)
In article <324@bnl.ARPA> drs@bnl.UUCP (David R. Stampf) writes: >In article <8802021704.AA24124@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> GASPARD@HROEUR5.BITNET writes: >>But let me ask you same questions: >> >>Do you have a 'GDOS'-printerdriver for the AST-turbo-laser? > >Who cares - I haven't seen GDOS out of atari yet and I won't spend $2000 to >get it. GDOS comes with ATHENA II from Iliad Inc., ATHENA II is a CAD program, and it uses GDOS for it's output to different graphics devices. They have some drivers for things like FX-80's and such, but they don't have any laser drivers... I would love to get my hands on some more info about GDOS, like how to write device drivers and the like. Ultimately, I would like to have a driver for Postscript Printers so I can run stuff off on a variety of Lasers. So, as soon as I find out more about GDOS, I could get started on writing some device drivers, which I would probably make available to anyone who wants them. B.T.W., ATHENA II is a pretty decsend CAD program for the price, it's only drawback is that there aren't too many drivers available for hardcopy devices. It's not as good as some of the packages available for PC's, but then it's also a lot more inexpensive. -- /* Ingo Cyliax * * ...!ihnp4!pur-ee!cyliax ECN, Electrical Engineering Bldg. * * cyliax@ecn.purdue.edu Purdue University, W. Lafayette,IN 47907 * * ing@cc.purdue.edu (317) 494-3473 / (317) 463-1747 after 5pm */
exodus@uop.edu (G.Onufer) (02/06/88)
I went into Federated last night and saw Microsoft word. There were no salesmen about (not like Federated, where you are usually harassed by three at a time! :-) so I opened it and looked inside.... Well, it comes with a GDOS disk and three fonts for those with enough memory or a GDOS supported output device (EPSON and ATARI Laser Printer right?)... So GDOS has emerged from the depths of rumours and bad licensing agreements, eh? Microsoft Word doesn't look too bad either...probably is more bug-free than WordPerfect, but I haven't used either one yet... Anyone have any comparisons? G. Onufer exodus@uop.edu
covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) (12/01/89)
Well, I have finally done it. I sold my Atari SLM804 laser printer. As you all know by now, I have spent the last 20 months trying to get decent support from Atari Corp for their product. I couldn't even get Atari to fix their buggy Diablo 630 Emulator, much less release the Epson Emulator for the SLM804. There has been a German Epson Emulator called LaserBrain, which I got a copy of over a year ago with German docs (which I can't read). but, Atari USA has yet to release an American version of LaserBrain. And then there is the problem of using the SLM804 with Spectre/GCR. It seems that Dave Small does have a 144 dpi printer driver for the SLM804, but not a 300 dpi printer driver. So, even with a Spectre and a SLM804, I can't get decent print outs. To do so would require spending another $500 for UltraScript. I wish Dave Small could bundle UltraScript with his products. Maybe that would lower the price of UltraScript to something affordable by more people. What say Dave, could you talk to the fine Imagen folks about bundling UltraScript with the GCR?? Anyway, as I really want to use Spectre/GCR, and as I would like to get a HW PC Emulator one day, I need a printer that is more adaptable than the SLM804. So, I have narrowed my choice down to two laser printers, the new Hewlett-Packard LaserJet IIp (IIp) and the Panasonic 4450. Both printers have serial and Centronics parallel interfaces. The IIP is the cheaper of the two lps. I can buy it locally for $995, but need to add an additional 1 meg board which costs $200 (third vendor board, the HP memory board costs $400). So, for $1200 + ~$100 sales tax I can get the IIp. The problem with the IIp is that it is slow, at about 4 pages per minute (4 ppm), and it lacks Epson emulation. So, while the IIp is cheaper than the Panasonic it lacks some necessary features. The Panasonic 4450 lists for $2500 but the street price locally is about $1600. I can buy the 4450 from a mail order place in chicago for $1269, add another $230 for the necessary additional 1 meg of RAM and you are at $1500. And since it is mail order I don't have to pay sales tax. The 4450 is 11 ppm, which is faster than the slm804. The 4450 has builtin Epson fx-286e, panasonic 1092i, diablo 630, ibm proprinter, and Laserjet+ emulation. This should allow most, if not all, software to print on it. The 4450 also has dual 250 sheet trays, with optional envelope and other size trays. The 4450 has optional font cartridges, and I believe a PostScript cartridge (though that isn't needed with the availability of UltraScript now). The 4450's toner cartridge is $35 and is rated at 5,000 sheets. So, all in all, the Panasonic 4450 is the laser printer that I will probably buy. The purpose of this message is twofold. First, I would like to hear from anyone who has the 4450 printer. what are your feelings about it? Has it worked well with your ST?? Has it worked well with Spectre/GCR?? Would you buy it again? And secondly, this message points out that Atari users have more choices now than a year ago. The local price of the SLM804 is $1200 w/o UltraScript, and $1500 with UltraScript. Compare that price to the local price of $1200 for the 1.5 meg version of the HP IIp, or the $1800 local price of the 1.5 meg version of the Panasonic 4450 and you see that Atari has some stiff competition in the laser printer area. Also, both Hewlett-packard and Panasonic have a better reputation, at least to me, for QUALITY and SUPPORT than Atari does. I can buy the 4450 and immediately use it with more ST and Mac programs than the Atari SLM804. I still can't use programs like AwardMaker or Certificate Maker with my SLM804 since those programs require an Epson printer. Anyway, the net (pun intended :-) )result of this is NO MORE SLM804 GRIPES FROM RICHARD COVERT on usenet or anywhere else!!! richard (Free at last, Thank God, I am free at last!!) covert gtephx!covertr (uucp address, force is my apollo node name ).
bmaraldo@watserv1.waterloo.edu (Commander Brett Maraldo) (12/01/89)
In article <4725e878.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: >Well, I have finally done it. I sold my Atari SLM804 laser printer. Probably a god move. >The Panasonic 4450 lists for $2500 but the street price locally is about $1600. >I can buy the 4450 from a mail order place in chicago for $1269, add another >$230 for the necessary additional 1 meg of RAM and you are at $1500. And since >it is mail order I don't have to pay sales tax. I have a 4450 as well (LP1100). The price has come down since I bought mine (in Canada). More detail follows... >The 4450 is 11 ppm, which is faster Since I don't do much straight text dumps, this speed isn't noticable to me. I mainly do bitmap dumps from TeX or Calamus. It takes about 5min per page for Calamus to process a page and about 2min per page for TeX. When I do do a text dump (from a PC and WordPerfect) the printer flies! >The 4450 has builtin Epson fx-286e, panasonic 1092i, diablo 630, >ibm proprinter, and Laserjet+ emulation. This should allow most, if not all, >software to print on it. The 4450 also has dual 250 sheet trays, with optional The emulations are very complete as well. I have no incompatiblilty probelms. >The 4450 also has dual 250 sheet trays, with optional >envelope and other size trays. The 4450 has optional font cartridges, and I >believe a PostScript cartridge (though that isn't needed with the availability >of UltraScript now). The 4450's toner cartridge is $35 and is rated at 5,000 Those two 250 sheet trays come in handy! You can also set the printer up to switch from one tray to the other when one runs out of paper. It'll also do duplex printing without a jam, but you have to be fast! >The 4450's toner cartridge is $35 and is rated at 5,000 >sheets. Well... there isn't a toner cartridge. You fill the 4450 like a photocopier (there is a little dorr under the paper tray). The consumables are: toner, $75/shot 5000 pages; drum, $250/shot 20,000pages; and developer, $170/shot 13,000 pages. I worked this out to be about 4 cents per page (cheap!). > >So, all in all, the Panasonic 4450 is the laser printer that I will probably >buy. I don' think you'll be disappointed. Also, the 4450 is built tough! The design is great! there is one-touch access to the complete paper path and cleaning is easy. Brett L Maraldo -- -------- Unit 36 Research --------- "Alien Technology Today" bmaraldo@watserv1.UWaterloo.ca {uunet!clyde!utai}!watserv1!bmaraldo
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/01/89)
In article <4725e878.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > The [Panasonic] 4450 [laser printer] is 11 ppm, which is faster >than the slm804. Of course, this is just the physical speed. In applications where you are sending full-page graphics to the laser printer, the SLM804 will win hands down because of high transfer rate between the ST and the printer. Just like CPUs, you have to benchmark the printers printing the kind of stuff you print before you know their relative speeds. ------ Greg Lindahl Astrophysicists for Choice
ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu (Enartloc Nhoj) (12/01/89)
In article <2368@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <4725e878.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > >> The [Panasonic] 4450 [laser printer] is 11 ppm, which is faster >>than the slm804. > >Of course, this is just the physical speed. In applications where you are >sending full-page graphics to the laser printer, the SLM804 will win hands >down because of high transfer rate between the ST and the printer. > >Just like CPUs, you have to benchmark the printers printing the kind of >stuff you print before you know their relative speeds. > >------ >Greg Lindahl Astrophysicists for Choice I am glad this discussion has surfaced. I just printed out a short score - 3 parts/148 measures - on my dealer's slm804. Took about 7 minutes - 7 pages. The same score takes 45+ minutes on my Epson LQ-800 . I am deliberating over getting the ATARI.. or the Panasonic 4450. Unfortunately, i have yet to see NOTATOR's performance on the Panasonic. If what Greg is saying is true... the ATARI, for my purposes, would be better.. as most of my printing time is consumed by graphics. However, the Panasonic seems to be a "better" system. Wish i could have both! AN advantage to buying the Panasonic is that it may be used with lots of other systems.... if one ever decides ST's no longer cut it. Has anybody out there seen/used NOTATOR with the 4450? Incidentally, i had a lengthy discussion with the rep from NOTATOR today. Great guy.. lots of information about NOTATOR's future... Particularly relating to the TT. C-LAB has had 2 TT's on order for over 10 months. THey are now told it will only be 30-60 days before they get one. Now if developers don't even have the TT yet (and mind you, C-LAB is out of GERMANY!) we'll all be out of breath before the general public ever sees one. Oh yeah.. there are rumours that NOTATOR is being ported to the MAC. Ain't so. -kevin ramsiri@blake.acs.washington.edu
sfwhite@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Stephen White) (12/02/89)
In article <4725e878.14a1f@force.UUCP> covertr@force.UUCP (Richard E. Covert) writes: > And then there is the problem of using the SLM804 with Spectre/GCR. It > seems that Dave Small does have a 144 dpi printer driver for the SLM804, > but not a 300 dpi printer driver. So, even with a Spectre and a SLM804, > I can't get decent print outs. To do so would require spending another > $500 for UltraScript. I wish Dave Small could bundle UltraScript with his > products. Maybe that would lower the price of UltraScript to something > affordable by more people. What say Dave, could you talk to the fine Imagen > folks about bundling UltraScript with the GCR?? If you really want this to happen, talk to Adobe. As far as I know, the major cost of _any_ PostScript-compatible device or software is the royalty paid to Adobe for developing PS. Thus, UltraScript is not likely to drop in price. Can anyone confirm this? -- ___ Stephen F. White, esq. standard_disclaimer() ______/__ <___ | \ /\ / "All sweeping generalizations are wrong." - Anon. ___> | \/ \/ sfwhite@watcgl.waterloo.edu
mjv@iris.brown.edu (Marshall Vale) (12/02/89)
In article <12513@watcgl.waterloo.edu> sfwhite@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Stephen White) writes: > If you really want this to happen, talk to Adobe. As far as I know, > the major cost of _any_ PostScript-compatible device or software is > the royalty paid to Adobe for developing PS. Thus, UltraScript is > not likely to drop in price. Can anyone confirm this? UltraScript is a PostScript _emulator_. All of Adobe's PostScript is published it what is known as the _Red Book_ and it has all the commands that make PS neat. However, it doesn't have the hints that Adobe uses in their TYPE 1 fonts to get them to look really good on small resolution printers. You pay royalties to Adobe when you buy your PS interpreter from them to sell. Imagen (or QMS who owns Imagen is a major printer manufacturer) wrote their own interpreter to do the dirty work. No royalties to Adobe since their not using any of their official product, just format. This is why US won't use Type 1 Adobe fonts (including the stardard LaserWriter + fonts). It uses a format called Type 3 which out in the public to use on PS interpreters. Confused? Sorry if you are. Now you know how most Mac users are going to feel once System 7 hits. Most of the cost of US comes from the fonts (CompuGraphic fonts?) Spectre also does not do PS at 144dpi but ImageWriter emulation which is a QuickDraw game. David Small could probably do 300dpi but it would be again QuickDraw just like the LaserWriter SC. IMHO, he is waiting to get PS emulation working before going to 300dpi because that's what people would expect anyway. Sorry for the ramblings, enjoy! -- mjv@iris.brown.edu "And, oh! Father Christmas, if you love me at all, Bring me a big, red india-rubber ball." A.A. Milne "Now We are Six"
buggs@cup.portal.com (William Edward JuneJr) (12/03/89)
As far as I know, the major cost of _any_ PostScript-compatible device > or software is the royalty paid to Adobe for developing PS. > Thus, UltraScript is not likely to drop in price. > Can anyone confirm this? > ___ Stephen F. White, esq. standard_disclaimer() I thought PostScript was or is becoming PD? Ed June
laba-1aj@web-1d.berkeley.edu (John Kawakami) (12/05/89)
In article <24675@cup.portal.com> buggs@cup.portal.com (William Edward JuneJr) writes: > > As far as I know, the major cost of _any_ PostScript-compatible device >> or software is the royalty paid to Adobe for developing PS. I understand that the user ends up paying only about $25 for the PS part of the printer. I'd guess that most of the extra lettuce goes to pay for the RAM and 35 (or so) fonts. That is probably why US costs whatever it costs... >> Thus, UltraScript is not likely to drop in price. >> Can anyone confirm this? >> ___ Stephen F. White, esq. standard_disclaimer() > >I thought PostScript was or is becoming PD? > >Ed June The PS standard is out there for anyone to emulate; it's in the "red-book" from Adobe. What is missing though is stuff called "Type 1" font support. Type 1 fonts make small characters readable on low rez (300 dpi) printers. Obviously, this is one way that Adobe is keeping one step ahead of the emulators. The only PD PS I can think of off hand is Ghostscript from the GNU project. Ghostscript is a PS screen previewer.
matthews@umd5.umd.edu (Mike Matthews) (12/05/89)
In article <12513@watcgl.waterloo.edu> sfwhite@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Stephen White) writes: >If you really want this to happen, talk to Adobe. As far as I know, >the major cost of _any_ PostScript-compatible device or software is >the royalty paid to Adobe for developing PS. Thus, UltraScript is >not likely to drop in price. Can anyone confirm this? >-- > ___ Stephen F. White, esq. standard_disclaimer() I seem to remember something about Adobe putting PostScript into the public domain in an effort to retain control of the market due to stiff competition. If this is true (can anybody confirm this?), wouldn't that reduce the price of royalties to, like, zero? I'm not sure if UltraScript even had to get a license for PostScript. It can be argued either way. Mike
millert@tramp.Colorado.EDU (MILLER TODD C) (12/06/89)
In reference to Adobe putting PostScript in the Public Domain. Yes! Amazing asit sounds Adobe has anounced that PS will be made PD in early 1990 (it may have
been by the end of the first quarter but I can't remember). The PD Postscript
will be able to use Type 1 fonts (something PS emulators can't do) and I believeAdobe will be giving out info on how the Type 1 fonts are created (don't quote
me on that). For more info check out the December Computer Shopper.
Hope this clears up the confusion.
-Todd
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Todd Miller - millert@tramp.Colorado.EDU |
| CU rules! Buffs #1 See ya on New Year's Day in Miami - Orange Bowl!!! |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|