news@sun.uucp (news) (09/09/87)
Can someone explain the differences to me between a "dumb" laser
printer (such as the HP LaserJet) and a "smart" one (such as the
Apple LaserWriter). The incredible price difference (~ $3,000) is
what I can't comprehend.
I understand PostScript and we have two LaserWriters at work that
we use with ditroff and both Adobe's TranScript package and devps'
package. I also understand that the LaserWriters come with a 68000
inside them and quite a bit (1+ Mbyte ?) of memory. I like the idea
of an ASCII based device independent graphics language. Then I've looked
at a manual for the original HP LaserJet and can see how you're
restricted by the amount of graphics you can display on a page
(56 Kb of memory) and the font limitations. I'm not sure what the
differences are between the LaserJet and the LaserJet II.
What's puzzling me is that a firm named "elan" markets versions of
DWB 2.0 (ditroff, etc.) that supports the LaserJet and they claim
it runs almost 2 times faster on the LaserJet than a Postscript
printer. If that's true, then why pay tiwce as much for a PostScript
printer than the HP ?? Would one be severly limited when using ditroff
with a "dumb" printer, in terms of fonts and point sizes ?? Or if your
main use for a laser printer will be troff, perhaps you don't really need
all the features of PostScript ??
Richard Stevens
Health Systems International, New Haven, CT
{ uunet | ihnp4 } ! hsi ! stevens
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)tim@ora.UUCP (Tim O'Reilly) (09/10/87)
There are many things that you can do with PostScript that
are much harder to do with a printer that doesn't have a
page description language. However, you do surmise correctly
that the main difference for the casual user is in the range
of fonts and sizes that are available. The original
LaserJet was very limited in the fonts that it supported.
The later versions support downloadable fonts, but generally
in a smaller range of sizes (i.e. you get certain sizes and
not others) vs. PostScript, in which all fonts are scalable
to whatever size you want (at least up to 127 point).
And yes, the LaserJet is much faster than the LaserWriter,
and is probably preferable if you are doing simple stuff.
We switched to the LaserWriter because PostScript made it
easier to include Mac illustrations etc. into troff
documents (you can do bitmaps on the LaserJet, but not
PostScript pictures) and because with PostScript we could go
right from the LaserWriter to typesetting on our Linotronic
L100 typesetter.
--
Tim O'Reilly (617) 527-4210
O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., Publishers of Nutshell Handbooks
981 Chestnut Street, Newton, MA 02164
UUCP: uunet!ora!tim ARPA: tim@ora.uu.net
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/10/87)
Essentially, what you get for your extra money in one of these "smarter"
laser printers is a slower laser printer.
The cheap, fast printers with the simple page description languages can
generally perform all the desktop publishing needs of a typical user.
Never in my experience have I ever wanted to, or heard of anybody wanting
to put a full page of high resolution graphics out to a laser printer for
desktop publishing purposes.
Desktop publishing is almost always mostly text. My LaserJet+ with
512K of RAM has only run out of memory once. That's when I wanted 15
high resolution screen images on the page at once. In this rare case,
I just pasted up this one page. I'm willing to do this to save
$3,000. (Actually, the memory upgrade on the HP isn't that much)
The right software can produce superb looking documents on a plain old
LaserJet with 64K of memory. It's all you need for letters, manuals,
charts tables etc.
Systems like Postscript are an admirable attempt at presenting a more
abstract interface, but they are currently not written well enough to
be fast and cheap. I'll take typesetting at a full 6 pages per minute
on a cheap laserprinter over fancy type expansion features on a slower,
much more expensive printer any day.
Imagen never got DDL running quickly enough - it's one of the reasons
they dropped it.
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)news@sun.uucp (news) (09/11/87)
If you would like to see for yourself what is good about a PostScript
printer, call 415-961-4400 and ask for a copy of the "Colophon" newsletter
that is devoted to PostScript printing technology.
Glenn Reid
Adobe Systems
PostScript Software Support
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)chuq@sun.UUCP (09/11/87)
>The cheap, fast printers with the simple page description languages can >generally perform all the desktop publishing needs of a typical user. >Never in my experience have I ever wanted to, or heard of anybody wanting >to put a full page of high resolution graphics out to a laser printer for >desktop publishing purposes. I'll disagree with this rather strongly. One very important thing that dumb laser printers don't supply is the ability to move to a typesetter when you want to. Even excluding high resolution graphics, there are a LOT of graphic items that are used in a good design (dingbats, bars, boxes, grey backing plates, etc...). If you create them as bitmaps for a laserprinter, when you try to send that to a typesetter (assuming you can find one that supports the rest of the data) you still have low resolution bitmaps -- that look very out of place. On the other hand, if you put those graphic items together using Postscript and run them on a laserwriter, when you move the output to a Postscript typesetter, the resolution of those items increases to the natural resolution of the typesetter, making them look much cleaner and like they belong there. The alternative for a dumb laser printer is to use it only for the text and paste in all of the graphic items by hand -- which removes most of the advantages of going to DTP technology in the first place. Even if you don't (or won't, like me) use a scanner for artwork, there are enough graphic items used in desktop publishing that the smarter and typesetter compatible printers are a necessity. I'd cringe to think of doing OtherRealms by typesetting the text and pasting everything in by hand -- I'd NEVER meet a schedule that way. chuq ---------------------------------------- Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)
chuq%plaid@Sun.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/14/87)
In article <27692@sun.uucp> Chuq writes: ME>> most people don't need the capabilities of a 2megabyte, Postscript ME>> driven laser printer. It's slower and costs a lot more. >I'll disagree with this rather strongly. One very important thing that dumb >laser printers don't supply is the ability to move to a typesetter when you >want to. Even excluding high resolution graphics, there are a LOT of graphic >items that are used in a good design (dingbats, bars, boxes, grey backing >plates, etc...). If you create them as bitmaps for a laserprinter, when you >try to send that to a typesetter (assuming you can find one that supports >the rest of the data) you still have low resolution bitmaps -- that look >very out of place. > Moving to a typesetter is a useful ability, but a large propoprortion of desktop publishers are using their laser printers for the final output. Even then, most DTP software drives both the HP style printer and the PostScript printer. TeX, TROFF, Ventura etc. all do this. That means you do your previewing on a cheaper, faster printer without Postscript, and then use the Postscript or Interpress output to drive the typesetter. >On the other hand, if you put those graphic items together using Postscript >and run them on a laserwriter, when you move the output to a Postscript >typesetter, the resolution of those items increases to the natural >resolution of the typesetter, making them look much cleaner and like they >belong there. If you use a scanner, this doesn't help you. If your clip-art is bitmapped, then the cheap printers are just as capable of printing it at 300 dpi as the expensive ones. They only fail if you want a whole page of 300dpi graphics, and you usually don't I use my DTP system for manuals, and there the graphics are usually things like screen snapshots. Postscript wouldn't help me here. >The alternative for a dumb laser printer is to use it only for the text and >paste in all of the graphic items by hand -- which removes most of the >advantages of going to DTP technology in the first place. Dumb laser printers are fully capable of printing included graphics in 300dpi bitmaps. If you aren't going to a typesetter later, this is all Postscript does, too. The suggestion that most DTP is just previewing for real typesetting bothers me. I think it's not used that way by most people. If you *are* going to a real typesetter, then you usually don't want your graphics formed from digitized images anyway. For the final master, you want to paste them in. People who demand real typesetting of their text usually want original quality for their artwork. It's only people who will accept 300dpi text that will usually accept digitized artwork. Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473 ---------------------------------------- Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun
daleske@cbdkc1.ATT.COM (09/17/87)
>Essentially, what you get for your extra money in one of these "smarter" >laser printers is a slower laser printer. >The cheap, fast printers with the simple page description languages can >generally perform all the desktop publishing needs of a typical user. >The right software can produce superb looking documents on a plain old >LaserJet with 64K of memory. It's all you need for letters, manuals, >charts tables etc. >Systems like Postscript are an admirable attempt at presenting a more >abstract interface, but they are currently not written well enough to >be fast and cheap. I'll take typesetting at a full 6 pages per minute >on a cheap laserprinter over fancy type expansion features on a slower, >much more expensive printer any day. Interestingly, Kyocera provides a set of laser printers which are comparable in price to the LaserJet but also provide a more intelligent page definition language. The language, PreScribe, is not Postscript. I have been quite surprised at the speed of the machine whether for graphics or text. The mid-range machine has 36 built-in fonts, supports down-loadable fonts, and has a set of meta-fonts for generation of tables of fonts in whatever form you want. Once the font is generated, any text using the font is printed as quickly as the built-in or down-loaded fonts. Some of the graphics commands are the standard line, box, circle, ellipse, pattern fill, arrow, pie, etc. Now, is the speed slowed by these extra capabilities? Font generation takes a little time. Graphics appear to be as fast as any text. My tests show ten pages per minute output with mixed text and graphics. ___________________________________________________________________________ John Daleske Columbus, Ohio. 614-860-4335 | Default disclaimer... UUCP: {ihnp4,cbosgd,desoto}!cbdkc1!daleske | ____________________________________________|______________________________ "Now," said the butterfly, "look closer and tell me what you see." "I see a tiny horse with wings upon its back" said Flutterby. "Why that's me I see! But what am I?" "You are you. Just as I am me!" said the wise old butterfly. "Nothing more, nothing less." ---------------------------------------- Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)
richard@noao.arizona.edu (09/17/87)
For what its worth: If you can, use a Xerox to photoreduce your
300 dpi laser output by half, giving you vitually 600 dpi
quality work...ableit in a small picture.
I have even done some stuff @ 72 dpi, and done a 4X reduction with
a good xero..uhh, photocopier, and the results are almost as
good as 300 dpi laser output.
--
Richard J. Sexton
INTERNET: richard@gryphon.CTS.COM
UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd, sdcsvax, ihnp4, nosc}!crash!gryphon!richard
"It's too dark to put the keys in my ignition..."
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM Delphi: CHUQ
We live and learn, but not the wiser grow -- John Pomfret (1667-1703)