giaccone@ur-tut (Tony Giaccone) (04/01/88)
Ok Folks, we've been evaluating the new IISC laserwriter, and found some things that seem to be real problems. The first problem ocurrs when printing a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The time it takes to print this spread sheet seems to vary from a low of 2.5 minutes to a high of over 35. Can anyone suggest any reason why there should be the amount of variation in the printing of the same document. The spread sheet is one page, printed landscape mode, uses only the Times font. The second problem is with a Microsoft Word (3.0) document. This document has two columns, is in Times, with screen dumps included with 1/4 inch column spacing, and 1/2 inch margins all around. When printed on the SC it seems to expand the margins so that the right column is pushed off the edge of the page. The inter-columnar (1/4 inch ) is enlarged to greater than 1/4 inch, and no amount of spacing adjustment seems to solve the problem. Not even setting the columnar spacing to negative values (ie -0.25 inches gives more than +0.5 inch spacing between columns). Switching measurments to picas instead of inches gives entirely different, but still incorrect, results. Has anyone else out there used the SC, have you noticed these or any other problems with the printer? What's going on here. Would someone from Apple care to comment? Tony Giaccone
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (04/02/88)
In article <1589@ur-tut.UUCP>, giaccone@ur-tut (Tony Giaccone) writes: > > Ok Folks, we've been evaluating the new IISC laserwriter, and found some > things that seem to be real problems. The first problem ocurrs when printing > a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The time it takes to print this spread sheet > seems to vary from a low of 2.5 minutes to a high of over 35. Can anyone > suggest any reason why there should be the amount of variation in the > printing of the same document. The spread sheet is one page, printed > landscape mode, uses only the Times font. > I don't use Excel since I seldom use a spreadsheet for anything, so I can't really say anything to this particular issue. However, on the rare occasion that I do use a spreadsheet, I use a prerelease of Full Impact (there are some advantages(?) to working for a major developer) and it prints quite quickly to my LaserWriter IISC. > The second problem is with a Microsoft Word (3.0) document. This document > has two columns, is in Times, with screen dumps included with 1/4 inch column > spacing, and 1/2 inch margins all around. When printed on the SC it seems to > expand the margins so that the right column is pushed off the edge of the > page. The inter-columnar (1/4 inch ) is enlarged to greater than 1/4 inch, > and no amount of spacing adjustment seems to solve the problem. Not even > setting the columnar spacing to negative values (ie -0.25 inches gives more > than +0.5 inch spacing between columns). Switching measurments to picas > instead of inches gives entirely different, but still incorrect, results. I had this same difficulty with Word until I got the Word 3.02, which was an upgrade to fix compatibility problems with the new LaserWriters. Again, I don't use Word much since I now have FullWrite, but I used to use it a lot and still have to use it for some magazine articles. Get hold of 3.02 -- it should fix your problem with the margins. > Has anyone else out there used the SC, have you noticed these or any other > problems with the printer? What's going on here. Would someone from Apple > care to comment? I have an SC (as stated above) and have found few problems with it. MockWrite won't print to it, PageMaker 2.0 dies when trying to print to it, but everything else I use prints just fine. In general, it is as fast as (or faster than) the LaserWriter IINTX at the office and I like the print quality better for things with bitmaps in them. MPW and LightSpeed work fine also. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: MY OPINIONS ^^^^^! > >
psych@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (R.Crispin - Psychology) (04/04/88)
The problem with multiple columns in word 3.01 is a problem with word 3.01. We often get messed up columns when we print on a LaserWriter or LaserWriter Plus. We have not discovered a consistant reason for the problem. The file works fine on some machines but not on others. Richard Crispin Dept. of Psychology Bitnet: psych@watdcs University of Waterloo Unix : psych@watdcsu.waterloo.edu Waterloo, Ont. Canada N2L 3G1 (519)885-1211 ext 2879
akk2@ur-tut (Atul Kacker) (04/05/88)
In article <338@dbase.UUCP> drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) writes: >In article <1589@ur-tut.UUCP>, giaccone@ur-tut (Tony Giaccone) writes: > >> The second problem is with a Microsoft Word (3.0) document. >I had this same difficulty with Word until I got the Word 3.02, which was >an upgrade to fix compatibility problems with the new LaserWriters. I don't know about you guys, but I think this is the first I have heard about version 3.02 of Word (or is it something that's available as a pre- release to Ashton-Tate). When was this upgrade announced ? And how did you get your upgrade ? >> Has anyone else out there used the SC, have you noticed these or any other >> problems with the printer? What's going on here. Would someone from Apple >> care to comment? >I have an SC (as stated above) and have found few problems with it. >In general, it is as fast as (or faster than) the >LaserWriter IINTX at the office and I like the print quality better for things >with bitmaps in them. I don't think that I can agree with Dennis on the print quality of the II SC. Bitmaps, will probably look the same on both the NTX and the SC, but what really matters is the text. The text fonts look ridiculous on the SC. They are squat with thick outlines and I can't imagine ANYONE liking the appearance of those fonts over the LW+ or NTX fonts. By reducing the font 4X and then printing, you lose everything that the font designers had in mind when they designed that font (in terms of style and appearance). I have seen output from the GCC Personal LaserPrinter and their output was MUCH better. (I believe they use Bitstream outline fonts). The standard answer I have seen on AppleLink and in Apple brochures is that people can always upgrade to a NT. Was the SC designed such that people would take one look at the output quality and decide they couldn't live without an upgrade ? Or did Apple in their haste to get something to the market (or in an efort to quieten people who complained of the lack of decently priced output devices) come up with such a beast ? I know one can get an extension cable for the SC, but why is the default cable supplied with it only 18" ? 18" barely leaves you with enough room to slip two fingers to get to the programmer's switch. The Apple LaserWriter was what set the Mac apart from other machines in terms of output quality. The LaserWriter SC is a step in the wrong direction. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Atul Kacker | Internet: akk2@tut.cc.rochester.edu | UUCP: {ames,cmcl2,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ur-tut!akk2 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) (04/05/88)
In article <1633@ur-tut.UUCP>, akk2@ur-tut (Atul Kacker) writes: > > I don't know about you guys, but I think this is the first I have heard > about version 3.02 of Word (or is it something that's available as a pre- > release to Ashton-Tate). When was this upgrade announced ? And how did > you get your upgrade ? No, it's not something that was given to us at A-T. I got my upgrade through my brother at UCLA. To the best of my knowledge, it was not "announced", it just sort of appeared to resolve printing problems with the new LaserWriters. Incremental upgrades don't seem to get announced by MS (witness the numerous revisions of Excel), they just show up to solve problems. > > I don't think that I can agree with Dennis on the print quality of the II SC. > Bitmaps, will probably look the same on both the NTX and the SC, but what > really matters is the text. The text fonts look ridiculous on the SC. They > are squat with thick outlines and I can't imagine ANYONE liking the appearance > of those fonts over the LW+ or NTX fonts. By reducing the font 4X and then > printing, you lose everything that the font designers had in mind when they > designed that font (in terms of style and appearance). > That's a matter of opinion. I happen to prefer the Times, Courier, and Helvetica which come with the SC, but aesthetics are a personal matter. The bitmaps ARE clearer, why that is so I don't know, but they are -- noticeably. > I have seen output from the GCC Personal LaserPrinter and their output was > MUCH better. (I believe they use Bitstream outline fonts). The standard > answer I have seen on AppleLink and in Apple brochures is that people > can always upgrade to a NT. Was the SC designed such that people would > take one look at the output quality and decide they couldn't live without > an upgrade ? Or did Apple in their haste to get something to the market > (or in an efort to quieten people who complained of the lack of decently > priced output devices) come up with such a beast ? > The SC is directed at people who need letter quality output but don't need PostScript. It does that very well. I might upgrade to an NT, someday, but I might not. There are a lot more fonts available to me with the SC than there are with the NT (at least in an affordable price range). The thing I miss is the graduated reduction/explosion of the image, not the rotation or other special effects of PostScript. Dennis Cohen Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division dBASE Mac Development Team -------------------------- Disclaimer: Standard disclaimer applies, opinions are my own.