eric@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) (10/26/89)
We have a (still running fine) Apple LaserWriter (original model) connected to our VAXcluster. We are finding that it is simply too slow in rendering complicated or large PostScript files. For instance, one program generates files that are about 13 MB each that take about 4-5 hours to print on the LaserWriter. Would it help for us to buy a new LaserWriter II? Is the II/NT significantly faster at processing or is the 9600 baud connection the main bottle-neck. Last time I was paying attention (over a year ago) the laser printers that connect directly to an Ethernet were much more expensive (we probably could not find more than several thousand or so). Oh, and a related question. There is a Linotronic printer somewhere here on campus. Would it be capable of rendering large quantities of PostScript efficiently if we want a publication-quality version? ++Eric Fielding eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (10/27/89)
In article <9144@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu>, eric@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Eric Fielding) writes: > We have a (still running fine) Apple LaserWriter (original model) connected > to our VAXcluster. We are finding that it is simply too slow in rendering > complicated or large PostScript files. For instance, one program generates > files that are about 13 MB each that take about 4-5 hours to print on the > LaserWriter. Would it help for us to buy a new LaserWriter II? Is the > II/NT significantly faster at processing or is the 9600 baud connection the > main bottle-neck. Last time I was paying attention (over a year ago) the > laser printers that connect directly to an Ethernet were much more expensive > (we probably could not find more than several thousand or so). > > Oh, and a related question. There is a Linotronic printer somewhere here > on campus. Would it be capable of rendering large quantities of PostScript > efficiently if we want a publication-quality version? > > ++Eric Fielding > eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu The Laser connection in Mobile alabama sells a ps-jet+ upgrade lid. Runs at 16 Mhz with 2 mb of ram. Old laserwriters were about 8 mhz with 1.5 meg ram. The extra .5 megs makes a LARGE diffrence. Sells for 1800-2000. I can get you one if interested, call. (512) 837-8317 for Woody Baker.
jeynes@adobe.COM (Ross A. Jeynes) (10/28/89)
In article <9144@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> eric@geology.tn.cornell.edu writes: >files that are about 13 MB each that take about 4-5 hours to print on the >LaserWriter. Would it help for us to buy a new LaserWriter II? Is the >II/NT significantly faster at processing or is the 9600 baud connection the >main bottle-neck? Last time I was paying attention (over a year ago) the If you do the math: 9600 bits 60 sec 60 min 1 byte 1 MB MB --------- X -------- X -------- X -------- X -------- = 3.456 ---- 1 sec 1 min 1 hr 10 bits 1,000,000 bytes hr ^ | start, stop, parity 1 hr 13 MB -------- X --------- = 3.76 hrs data transmission time for a 13 MB file 3.456 MB 1 It seems that data transmission time is a large part of the problem. In my experience, the speed of the communication channel greatly impacts the printing speed. A faster CPU will increase the processing speed as well; an image file that I just tested that took 132 seconds to print on the original Laserwriter took 45 seconds to print on an NTX. (This was over appletalk, where the communication time should be less of an issue. These numbers should not be construed as a solid benchmark, just a test that I ran to see if there was a noticeable difference.) >laser printers that connect directly to an Ethernet were much more expensive >(we probably could not find more than several thousand or so). Geez, how many do you need? :-) >Oh, and a related question. There is a Linotronic printer somewhere here >on campus. Would it be capable of rendering large quantities of PostScript >efficiently if we want a publication-quality version? Typesetters generally operate more slowly than the low-resolution devices because of the differences in the imaging machinery, and because of the way the image is built. A typesetter generally builds a display list on the hard disk of the RIP, whereas the lower-resolution devices, like the Laserwriter, use a frame buffer in RAM and just blast the bits onto the page. In the high resolution typesetter case, it would cost too much in RAM to use a frame buffer. Ross Jeynes Developer Support jeynes@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated {sun|decwrl}!adobe!jeynes