bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (09/30/88)
Some time back I suggested that Microport troff for V/AT doesn't work,
John Sulley said it worked for him to a typesetter. He also said that
maybe he should bring up JetRoff to confirm or deny the results I saw.
I've seen no further reaction from anyone else or from Microport, is it
reasonable to ASSume that my claim (Microport V/AT troff is brain dead)
is correct? Has anyone tried JetRoff with Microport's '386 version?
--
Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM
Usenet: { killer | att | rutgers | uunet!bigtex }!ssbn!billlarry@focsys.UUCP (Larry Williamson) (10/01/88)
In article <162@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: >Some time back I suggested that Microport troff for V/AT doesn't work, >John Sulley said it worked for him to a typesetter. He also said that >maybe he should bring up JetRoff to confirm or deny the results I saw. >I've seen no further reaction from anyone else or from Microport, is it >reasonable to ASSume that my claim (Microport V/AT troff is brain dead) >is correct? Has anyone tried JetRoff with Microport's '386 version? I've tried to bring jetroff up on the V/AT (286) machine with little success. I can't say that my problems have been troff's fault though. Some problems seem to be font file errors. I've been thinking about sending my $$ to jetroff's author so that I'll have a good clean version to work from. But with the concern you have raised of troff's viability, I'm not sure that it would be money well spent. I would feel more comfortable if I heard that someone else has actually used DWB1.0 troff with success. Someone not connected with microport, that is. -- Larry Williamson -- Focus Automation Systems -- Waterloo, Ontario watmath!focsys!larry (519) 746-4918
bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (10/03/88)
In article <205@focsys.UUCP> larry@focsys.UUCP (Larry Williamson) writes: >In article <162@carpet.WLK.COM> bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) writes: [ deleting what I wrote ] > >I've tried to bring jetroff up on the V/AT (286) machine with little >success. I can't say that my problems have been troff's fault though. >Some problems seem to be font file errors. There are indeed some fonts missing from the usenet distribution, and they are available, promptly, by sending in your contribution. The package still functions without the H, HI, and HB fonts, but you get the djet manual page printed with Roman where it says it's Helvetica. >I've been thinking about sending my $$ to jetroff's author so that I'll >have a good clean version to work from. But with the concern you have >raised of troff's viability, I'm not sure that it would be money well >spent. If you're going to use troff from (vendor name here) to a Laser Jet then I feel that the contribution is well worth it. V/AT troff viability aside, it's DWB 1.0 (even if my `brain dead' claim is bogus) and you really do want 2.0. You're going to spend a lot more than $50 getting a working troff and you're going to spend close to that figure getting enough books to figure out how to use it. I did not find the "stock" AT&T documentation sufficient, nor the Elan doc (it was, admittedly, better). >I would feel more comfortable if I heard that someone else has actually >used DWB1.0 troff with success. Someone not connected with microport, >that is. > >-- >Larry Williamson -- Focus Automation Systems -- Waterloo, Ontario > watmath!focsys!larry (519) 746-4918 I'd feel a lot more comfortable if anyone, Microport or not, could confirm or deny that V/AT troff functions with any postprocessor. Here we are, all dressed up, ready to plunge into some industrial strength document preparation and we don't know if the primary tool works... Another note about PC Research (author of JetRoff), since sending in the contribution, I have been nearly flooded with nifty little add on's and gadgets, in addition to the fonts that were not published to the net. I've certainly gotten my money's worth. The jetcal program alone is a compelling reminder of what the HP Laser Jet can do that we never saw. That's an unsolicited testimonial from me, just a happy user. -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att | rutgers | uunet!bigtex }!ssbn!bill
larry@focsys.UUCP (Larry Williamson) (10/04/88)
I must agree with Bill Kennedy, Microport's DWB1.0 troff is infact
brain dead. All my efforts to get it to work with jetroff have been
fruitless. I am also quite sure that jetroff is not the culprit.
I would rather not spend nearly $1K to buy another troff package when
the one I have should work. Especially since I paid for it. And now
that I've seen what jetroff can do, I don't know if I can sit here
and be satisfied with a laser printer that has so much potential locked
up in its little cabinet unused.
I get the impression from the traffic in this news group that only
Mr. Kennedy and I are trying to use jetroff with SV/AT. Is this true?
There must be more users out there? Are you complaining to microport?
Why would microport want to fix a problem that is bothering only two
of there users, especially when one of them has found a solution to
his problem?
Larry
--
Larry Williamson -- Focus Automation Systems -- Waterloo, Ontario
watmath!focsys!larry (519) 746-4918wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (10/05/88)
In article <206@focsys.UUCP> larry@focsys.UUCP (Larry Williamson) writes: >I must agree with Bill Kennedy, Microport's DWB1.0 troff is infact >brain dead. All my efforts to get it to work with jetroff have been >fruitless. I am also quite sure that jetroff is not the culprit. > >I get the impression from the traffic in this news group that only >Mr. Kennedy and I are trying to use jetroff with SV/AT. Is this true? >There must be more users out there? Are you complaining to microport? Some of us are complaining to Microport via E-mail, and not just complaining, but suggesting solutions. There are efforts underway to make DWB 2.0 available to V/AT users. >Why would microport want to fix a problem that is bothering only two >of there users, especially when one of them has found a solution to >his problem? Because there are at least some people even at Microport who care about more than the bottom line; however, if I were one of them, I would not respond to some of the complaints posted here either, seeing what tone they are in. Seriously, I find that most companies react better to e-mail and phone calls than to constant bashing in a public forum like this. Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
wlr@beach.cis.ufl.edu (William Ricker) (10/06/88)
In article <206@focsys.UUCP> larry@focsys.UUCP (Larry Williamson) writes: >I get the impression from the traffic in this news group that only >Mr. Kennedy and I are trying to use jetroff with SV/AT. Is this true? >There must be more users out there? Are you complaining to microport? > How do I get jetroff? -- - Bill - Bill Ricker wlr@vlsi2.ee.ufl.edu 141 Turkey Creek wlr@beach.cis.ufl.edu Alachua, FL 32615 bill%ricker.UUCP@ufl.edu
larry@focsys.UUCP (Larry Williamson) (10/06/88)
In article <212@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >In article <206@focsys.UUCP> larry@focsys.UUCP (Larry Williamson) writes: >>I must agree with Bill Kennedy, Microport's DWB1.0 troff is infact >>brain dead. All my efforts to get it to work with jetroff have been >>fruitless. I am also quite sure that jetroff is not the culprit. >> >>I get the impression from the traffic in this news group that only >>Mr. Kennedy and I are trying to use jetroff with SV/AT. Is this true? >>There must be more users out there? Are you complaining to microport? > >Some of us are complaining to Microport via E-mail, and not just >complaining, but suggesting solutions. There are efforts underway to >make DWB 2.0 available to V/AT users. 1. I am glad to here that there is some move afoot to help us out here. 2. I sent email to uport, but it has bounced!, This is how I sent my email to uport: To: watmath!uport!techs Subject: SV/AT DWB1.0 troff trouble [ text deleted ] this is what I got back! Subject: failed mail To: watmath!focsys!larry Message-Id: <8810042128.AA20048@suprt.UUCP> Status: R ======= command failed ======= COMMAND: /bin/lmail 'jmsully' 'plocher' [and more text, mostly what I sent] >>Why would microport want to fix a problem that is bothering only two >>of there users, especially when one of them has found a solution to >>his problem? > >Because there are at least some people even at Microport who care about more >than the bottom line; I don't argue this. Microport has still been my favourite unix vendor. > however, if I were one of them, I would not respond to >some of the complaints posted here either, seeing what tone they are in. I seems obvious that my intent was poorly conveyed in my writing. I'd like to think that I am not a uport basher. > >Seriously, I find that most companies react better to e-mail and phone calls >than to constant bashing in a public forum like this. Agreed. Larry. -- Larry Williamson -- Focus Automation Systems -- Waterloo, Ontario watmath!focsys!larry (519) 746-4918
fmg@homxc.UUCP (F.GOLDSTEIN) (10/06/88)
Does the DWB 2.2 work with jetroff? If it does, can some kind soul send me the sources and any notes on getting it going? Thanks, Floyd Goldstein -- Floyd Goldstein AT&T Bell Laboratories att!homxc!fmg (or) homxc!fmg@att.com arpa!homxc!fmg (or) homxc!fmg@att.arpa