dror@infmx.UUCP (Dror Matalon) (12/23/89)
Now that 386 boxes are getting to be really cheap I'm thinking of
getting the best of both worlds by buying one running Unix and Dos tasks under
it. I've been following this news group for a while and I'm beginning to wonder
whether it's a good idea. I'm quite technical seeing that I make a living
writing 'C' code under unix on SUN workstations. But I'm not sure that I want
to spend that much time at home hacking Kernels and fooling around with
device drivers. It's bad enough that I had to educate myself about MFM RLL
ESDI SCSI Interleave modes wait states motherboards.
I was thinking of buying a no name clone running at 25Mhz with 4 Megs
and a 120M RLL Seagate drive. Do I need to worry about competability issues?
How do I find out what drive and what controller I can use with what unix
(Before I buy all this stuff).
Should I just give up and maybe get deskview and run DOS under that?
Please, no religious wars I'm interested in finding out what people
in similar situation did and how it worked out.
Thanks
Dror
Dror Matalon Informix Software Inc.
{pyramid,uunet}!infmx!dror 4100 Bohannon drive
Menlo Park, Ca. 94025
415-926-6426
--
Dror Matalon Informix Software Inc.
{pyramid,uunet}!infmx!dror 4100 Bohannon drive
Menlo Park, Ca. 94025
415-926-6426cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (12/23/89)
In article <2910@infmx.UUCP>, dror@infmx.UUCP (Dror Matalon) writes: > I've been following this news group for a while and I'm beginning to wonder > whether it's a good idea. I'm quite technical seeing that I make a living > writing 'C' code under unix on SUN workstations. But I'm not sure that I want > to spend that much time at home hacking Kernels and fooling around with > device drivers. It's bad enough that I had to educate myself about MFM RLL > ESDI SCSI Interleave modes wait states motherboards. Whenever you watch a BBS/newsgroup discussion group you will always find the most of the discussions talk about problems the user's are having. Who cares that I have had no problems runnin 386/ix on my machine (unless, of course, there is something real strange about my machine). Normally you will have no problems running unix on most clones. The problems usually crawl in when you try to run some high performance, or little heard of peripheral. This is true for 386/ix, Xenix, SCO Unix, Bell Tech Unix (now Intel Unix), ESIX, Dell unix and probably most packages. If you really want to make sure that you get compatible hardware, you can order your hardware and os from the same vendor and require that they pre-load the os and run the burn in with your os. Vendors that do this may charge a little bit more than those that don't, but you save all the headaches of figuring which board uses which interrupt, i/o address, and memory address. Two companies that I know of that will do this are Dell and Tangent Computer Inc.. I'm sure there are many others so you shouldn't have a problem with it. > I was thinking of buying a no name clone running at 25Mhz with 4 Megs > and a 120M RLL Seagate drive. Do I need to worry about competability issues? > How do I find out what drive and what controller I can use with what unix > (Before I buy all this stuff). This is a concern, but not a major one. If you buy the stuff and load the OS yourself, MAKE SURE YOU buy the stuff from a vendor that will give you a 30 day no questions asked return policy (without any penalties/restocking fees). Again both of the companies I mentioned above provide this service and I'm sure they are not the only ones. The only extra thing you may want to remember is that Unix is a real memory hog (and gets worse as life goes on). You will want to buy as much memory as you can. Once you get to 8 meg on a single user system you get to the point of diminishing returns. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Conor P. Cahill uunet!virtech!cpcahil 703-430-9247 ! | Virtual Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 876, Sterling, VA 22170 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) (12/24/89)
I would never buy unix specifically to run DOS. You buy unix because it is better and use the capability to run DOS to get over the addiction. Bottom line, what could you need DOS for that unix can't do better anyway? Put a litle more diplomatically, If you *really* want to be ablt to run DOS, with no strings attached in so far as compatibility is concerned, run DOS. Tim Brown | Computer Connection | (attmail or uunet)!comcon!tim |
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (12/24/89)
In article <2910@infmx.UUCP> dror@infmx.UUCP (Dror Matalon) writes: > I was thinking of buying a no name clone running at 25Mhz with 4 Megs >and a 120M RLL Seagate drive. Do I need to worry about competability issues? >How do I find out what drive and what controller I can use with what unix >(Before I buy all this stuff). I helped my brother to set up a similar system to run 386/ix. A DTK 20MHz + 5M + Seagate 120M RLL. Installing was easy. It needed very little adjustments from the defaults. I was careful to buy only hardware in Interactives list of "approved" hardware. It is a good idea to decide first on whose UNIX you will be using (Interactive, SCO or Everex) and stick to recommended hardware. The resulting system was very satisfactory, it certainly beats the hell of this 3B2 I am using right now.
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (12/24/89)
In article <1989Dec23.220436.14097@agate.berkeley.edu>, ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > I was careful to buy only hardware > in Interactives list of "approved" hardware. It is a good idea to > decide first on whose UNIX you will be using (Interactive, SCO or > Everex) and stick to recommended hardware. Would the kind folx at Interactive, Dell, SCO, ESIX, etc. be so kind as to post, at regular intervals, their latest lists of "approved" hardware? I do like the fine artwork in all the nice advertisements, but a bit of advance knowledge can save much weeping and gnashing of teeth. For example, I have discovered that Interactive generally runs like a dream on Compaq :-) but develops problems I never knew could exist on Northgate :-( I even sent my Northgate hardware back for inspection; the technician's report was "passes all Northgate diagnostics" and "we have no known incompatibilities". So now I have this nice box that runs DOS really well, but most of the time decides not to boot UNIX, even from a floppy. Ech. Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny) (12/24/89)
In article <207@comcon.UUCP>, tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes: > Bottom line, what could you need DOS for that unix can't do better > anyway? Yeah, I guess none of those 30,000+ applications are any good. So many of them waste time on such non-essentials as color and on-line help. Why, many DOS users find they don't even have to look at manuals for some applications. You know that means they can't really be computing. All those misguided DOS users should just give up the idea of doing useful work for the next year or so, and start working their way through the cubic meter of documentation a person needs to master before having a fighting chance of *starting* to put together a UNIX system that does lots of nifty things. :-) :-) :-) Don't get me wrong---I love UNIX and I'm trying to plow through that cubic meter myself. But face it, a UNIX system is worse than useless *unless* it comes equipped with someone who knows the ins and outs of kernel configuration, utilities, system admin, sendmail, software porting, etc. etc. ad infinitum. This all adds up to an astounding intellectual overhead, one that most mortal humans will have no chance at mastering on less than a full-time basis. Like I was telling my father about all the cool things my UNIX system can do, but when he asked me about what kind of system he should look at to run his small business (it has to be do-it-yourself all the way, due to low budget) I told him to forget UNIX unless he could afford to hire somebody to run it. Or to take 6 months off work to learn to run it. Moving to UNIX to overcome the disadvantages of MS-DOS is much like getting married to overcome the disadvantages of being single. Sure, it will work, but you get quite a few lagniappes in the bargain... Dan Mocsny dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu
larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) (12/24/89)
> Would the kind folx at Interactive, Dell, SCO, ESIX, etc. be so kind > as to post, at regular intervals, their latest lists of "approved" Dan, you can always call the vendors and ask for a copy of the "approved and tested hardware". I know I received one from SCO, Interactive and ESIX. Happy Holidays - -- Larry Snyder, Northern Star Communications, Notre Dame, IN uucp: root@nstar -or- ...!iuvax!ndmath!nstar!root
ilan343@violet.berkeley.edu (12/25/89)
In article <207@comcon.UUCP> tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes: > >I would never buy unix specifically to run DOS. You buy unix because it >is better and use the capability to run DOS to get over the addiction. >Bottom line, what could you need DOS for that unix can't do better >anyway? Put a litle more diplomatically, If you *really* want to be >ablt to run DOS, with no strings attached in so far as compatibility is >concerned, run DOS. Current versions of VP/ix or Dos Merge do a very good job at running DOS from a 386 Unix. There are a few good reason to do it. Software availability, cross-development, multiple DOS sessions. There is a complicating factor however. With all the 386 specific software (using DOS extenders) coming out you still have to keep a DOS partition available in your system. VP/ix and DOS Merge won't run "DOS extended" applications, to run them you have to bbot from DOS.
poffen@molehill (Russ Poffenberger) (12/25/89)
In article <207@comcon.UUCP> tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes: > >I would never buy unix specifically to run DOS. You buy unix because it >is better and use the capability to run DOS to get over the addiction. >Bottom line, what could you need DOS for that unix can't do better >anyway? Put a litle more diplomatically, If you *really* want to be >ablt to run DOS, with no strings attached in so far as compatibility is >concerned, run DOS. > Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I can think of just ONE good reason that you want good msdos compatibility, and that is to run all those tens of thousands of msdos programs that AREN'T available under UNIX. Personally, I use UNIX all day at work on a Sun workstation and wish dearly that I could get a good BSD unix for my home PC, yet retain msdos compatibility for all those msdos programs I have. Russ Poffenberger DOMAIN: poffen@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: {uunet,decwrl,amdahl}!sjsca4!poffen 1601 Technology Drive CIS: 72401,276 San Jose, Ca. 95110 (408)437-5254
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/25/89)
In article <2910@infmx.UUCP> dror@infmx.UUCP (Dror Matalon) writes:
Now that 386 boxes are getting to be really cheap I'm thinking of
getting the best of both worlds by buying one running Unix and Dos tasks under
it.
Great idea. I have done it, and never regretted it. A 386 is a very large
machine.
I was thinking of buying a no name clone running at 25Mhz with 4
Megs and a 120M RLL Seagate drive.
Excellent choice. a Couple of caveats: be sure that to upgrade the memory
to 8 megs you can do it on board or on the 32 bit board, *without* throwing
away the existing memory, and without using any 16 bit slot. I would advise
making sure it can be expanded to 8 megs just by pushing in a suitable number
of 1Megabit chips.
Don't use Seagate drives. My current favourites, notwithstanding the
difficulties of the manufacturer, are the Miniscribe 3085 (71 Megs RLL, 22
msec, half height) and the Miniscribe 3180E (160 Megs ESDI, 18 msec, half height),
that you can take home for about $570 and $1200 respectively. The 3085
has excellent odds of working RLL to 110 megs. I would recommend the Adaptec
2372B RLL controller, or even the WD1006 one. ESDI controllers, as long
as they are 1:1 and non caching, are ok.
You also absolutely want a 1/4" tape, either a 60MBytes or a 125 MBytes one
(the higher capacity ones are *expnsive*). Wangtek, Everex and Archive are
pretty good. Get a combo with a QIC-02 interface, not a QIC-36 one, they
tend to be cheaper. And if you lose the controller (I did :->), a QIC-02
one costs half a QIC-36 one.
On the other hand I seriously suggest that you consider using a SCSI
controller. You surely *need* a cartridge tape backup, and if you
anticipate running out of slots or IRQ lines, etc..., a SCSI controller can
drive as many discs and tapes as you want. The SCSI controllers are also
often (not the Seagate ones, that is) multithreading, and fast. There is no
question that *the* SCSI controller is the Adaptec 1542A. A SCSI controller
costs more than an RLL or ESDI one, but less than an RLL or ESDI controller
+ a tape controller. If I were to reconfigure my system now, I would go for
a SCSI controller. You have an ample choice of devices. The
Quantum PRO80S seems to be nice, and not too terribly expensive. Apparently
the best SCSI tape is the Archive Viper, but I have no idea of prices.
As to Unixes, get Everex if you have money problems, SCO Unix if you haven't
and want a lot of DOS compatibility, ISC if you want fast X11. Have a look
at SCO's open desktop (even if it has Ingres, which is the competition).
Make sure that the Unix you get can boot off a SCSI controller if you get
one.
As to video board, get an ATI VGA wonder. They usually come with a free bus
mouse (which saves you another slot, and money), and they are 16 bit (faster
in character mode or 256 color mode), and you can get a nice VGA gray scale
monitor to match.
If you can, get *two* discs instead of one with the same capacity. For example,
if you go RLL, get two Mitsubishi MR535 40/60 Megs, 25 msec, instead of
a single 120 Meg disc. If you balance the load, your system, even single user,
will be faster. With SCSI, having two discs is even better, because they
can overlap operations.
You also want to get a modem, because you want to join the net. Get a
Trailblazer, or if you really want, a 9600 baud fax modem.
As to laser printers, get an HP LJ IIP (low cost, low running cost).
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.ukkarl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (12/25/89)
In article <511102@nstar.UUCP> larry@nstar.UUCP (Larry Snyder) writes: >> Would the kind folx at Interactive, Dell, SCO, ESIX, etc. be so kind >> as to post, at regular intervals, their latest lists of "approved" > >Dan, you can always call the vendors and ask for a copy of the "approved >and tested hardware". I know I received one from SCO, Interactive and >ESIX. One other possibility that many seem to overlook: Buy both the OS and the machine from a vendor who has tested and will support the confiuration you wish to use. Sure, this might cost a few more bucks (usually not many however). It will, however, insure that the system works as intended when it is delivered. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (12/26/89)
In article <1557@aber-cs.UUCP> pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes: > >You also absolutely want a 1/4" tape, either a 60MBytes or a 125 MBytes one >(the higher capacity ones are *expnsive*). Wangtek, Everex and Archive are >pretty good. Get a combo with a QIC-02 interface, not a QIC-36 one, they >tend to be cheaper. And if you lose the controller (I did :->), a QIC-02 >one costs half a QIC-36 one. On the other hand, you can get an Archive Super Scorpion 125MB drive quite cheaply -- well under $1,000. They are in short supply, as they've been discontinued by the maker, but we still have a few (I think). Other vendors are probably the same there. >On the other hand I seriously suggest that you consider using a SCSI >controller. You surely *need* a cartridge tape backup, and if you >anticipate running out of slots or IRQ lines, etc..., a SCSI controller can >drive as many discs and tapes as you want. The SCSI controllers are also >often (not the Seagate ones, that is) multithreading, and fast. There is no >question that *the* SCSI controller is the Adaptec 1542A. A SCSI controller >costs more than an RLL or ESDI one, but less than an RLL or ESDI controller >+ a tape controller. If I were to reconfigure my system now, I would go for >a SCSI controller. You have an ample choice of devices. The >Quantum PRO80S seems to be nice, and not too terribly expensive. Apparently >the best SCSI tape is the Archive Viper, but I have no idea of prices. The 1542 Adaptec controller >is< nice. No gripes there. Archive Viper 150MB tape drives in SCSI format are well under $1k as well. They even have a >new< 525MB (yow!) drive. We're getting one of those on evaluation; they're not much more expensive than the 150MB models. The one drawback is that like most QIC drives, they can read but not write the lower density media. >As to Unixes, get Everex if you have money problems, SCO Unix if you haven't >and want a lot of DOS compatibility, ISC if you want fast X11. Have a look >at SCO's open desktop (even if it has Ingres, which is the competition). >Make sure that the Unix you get can boot off a SCSI controller if you get >one. I would say either ISC or SCO. Then again, I haven't played with ESIX. >As to video board, get an ATI VGA wonder. They usually come with a free bus >mouse (which saves you another slot, and money), and they are 16 bit (faster >in character mode or 256 color mode), and you can get a nice VGA gray scale >monitor to match. NO! The ATI bus mouse is not recognized here by either SCO or ISC's unix, although it does work fine under MSDOS. Neither ISC or SCO will support that configuration, and ATI doesn't know why it doesn't work (nor do SCO or ISC). It may be 90% Microsoft bus mouse compatible, but it's not 100%. >If you can, get *two* discs instead of one with the same capacity. For example, >if you go RLL, get two Mitsubishi MR535 40/60 Megs, 25 msec, instead of >a single 120 Meg disc. If you balance the load, your system, even single user, >will be faster. With SCSI, having two discs is even better, because they >can overlap operations. Correct. >As to laser printers, get an HP LJ IIP (low cost, low running cost). Especially if you don't mind doing a little hacking. I understand that the IIP can take LZW compressed input -- which will make the printer run god-awfully fast compared to the LJII. -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG (Chip Rosenthal) (12/27/89)
karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >>[re: HP LJ IIP printer] >Especially if you don't mind doing a little hacking. I understand that the >IIP can take LZW compressed input Hmmm...you might have something here. The IIP adds the command: # Set Compression Mode # # Determines how raster data is interpreted when transferred. # # <ESC> * b # M # # # = 0 - Unencoded # 1 - Run-length encoding # 2 - Tagged Image File Format (TIFF) rev. 4.0 I don't have the techinical manual for the IIP. If anybody out there does, how about posting some info on the compression formats? Another *very* nice thing about the IIP: it adds a "font rotate" command so that you don't need separate portrait and landscape fonts, and more fonts were stuffed into the unused space. If you are stuck with nroff, this is a good deal, because you can now get roman, italic, and bold in 10 chars/in and 12 chars/in courrier without buying additional cartridges. The thing is slooooowww (4 pages/min), but overall a good deal.
cpcahil@virtech.uucp (Conor P. Cahill) (12/27/89)
In article <818@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG>, chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG (Chip Rosenthal) writes: > karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > >>[re: HP LJ IIP printer] > >Especially if you don't mind doing a little hacking. I understand that the > >IIP can take LZW compressed input I prefer the panasonic Laser Partner for approx $1,300 nowadays. It has two 250 pg paper input bins, face down output bin, 11 pages per minute printer engine. Full compatability with hp laserjet. The only thing it doesnt do is accept hp font cartridges. It does download hp-compatible fonts. I have had one for about a year running 24 hours a day, printing about 10,000 pages per month without any problems. -- +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Conor P. Cahill uunet!virtech!cpcahil 703-430-9247 ! | Virtual Technologies Inc., P. O. Box 876, Sterling, VA 22170 | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/28/89)
In article <207@comcon.UUCP> tim@comcon.UUCP (Tim Brown) writes: > >I would never buy unix specifically to run DOS. You buy unix because it >is better and use the capability to run DOS to get over the addiction. >Bottom line, what could you need DOS for that unix can't do better >anyway? If you write your own software and can afford all UNIX developer's kits, this is theoretically correct. However in the real world there are frequently DOS-hosted programs which you must use for an important (if small) fraction of the time, even though you want to overall convenience and flexibility of UNIX for most of your work. An example is a shop which develops embedded software for a variety of different microprocessors and OS host environments, but does so on one network of boxes. Some of the vendor supplied compilers are hosted to DOS, *period*. Many of the others will run native under UNIX or nearly-so with a special loader. But the ability to shell transparently down to DOS for a few cross compile and link phases is essential to the smooth running of the shop. This is where VP/ix shines. > Put a litle more diplomatically, If you *really* want to be >ablt to run DOS, with no strings attached in so far as compatibility is >concerned, run DOS. The adage is freshly demonstrated: diplomacy is the art of saying nothing at length. :-) VP/ix *does* run DOS. It just runs it within the "ghost PC" of a Virtual-386 task. Raw CPU performance is not far below what a native 86 mode 386 would see; DOS and I/O call overhead is dictated by the care with which the Emulation Control Task (ECT) is written. Compatibility is limited by how much emulation the ECT wants to do, and also by the subject program's "well behavior". Finally, a 386 UNIX installation typically lets you allocate a bootable DOS partition on your hard disk which can be accessed from VP/ix as well as native-booted DOS. So you can have the best of both worlds: run DOS under UNIX for your mundane workday needs, but switch active partitions and reboot under DOS on weekends when you'd rather be playing Alien Space Zap. :-) -- "Nature loves a vacuum. Digital \O@/ Tom Neff doesn't." -- DEC sales letter /@O\ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (12/30/89)
In article <818@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG> chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >>>[re: HP LJ IIP printer] >>Especially if you don't mind doing a little hacking. I understand that the >>IIP can take LZW compressed input > >I don't have the techinical manual for the IIP. If anybody out there does, >how about posting some info on the compression formats? The compression mode refered to as TIFF 4.0 on the IIP is the PackBits compression mode. It is a straightforward extension to simple run length encoding. Each 'run' is preceeded by a control byte. A value of -1 to -127 means repeat the next byte abs(control) times. A value of 0 to 127 means the next control+1 bytes are uncompressed. A value of -128 is a NOP. This scheme actually gets pretty good compression on images, and is much simpler than LZW. We provide this as an output option in our FAX package, and it makes the IIP print faster than the II (since FAX is image, and the bottleneck is the communication to the printer). We have one site that runs three FAX boards, incoming (!) only, and are using the IIP to print the FAXes. They plan on eventually replacing a total of eight FAX machines with two 386's, two IIP's, eight FAX boards, and two ISC runtime licenses. I believe the cost justifaction is that they need plain paper output and plain paper FAX machines are very pricey. (NOTE: two systems are used for reliability concerns, not performance; these folk's business depends on receiving a continuous stream of incoming FAX 'information' from their customers). The IIP is the fastest parallel interface laserprinter for this type of application. It also happens to have the best price, which is just icing on the cake. -Rick -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ?????? mention PC Research,Inc.| WE'RE SHIPPING your uunet!pcrat!rick| Ask about FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) FAX # (201) 389-8963 | Or JetRoff - troff postprocessor for the HP {Laser,Desk}Jet
sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) (12/30/89)
In article <1989Dec30.071817.3232@pcrat.uucp> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: >In article <818@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG> chip@chinacat.Lonestar.ORG (Chip Rosenthal) writes: >>karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: >>>>[re: HP LJ IIP printer] > >The compression mode refered to as TIFF 4.0 on the IIP is the PackBits >compression mode. It is a straightforward extension to simple run length >The IIP is the fastest parallel interface laserprinter for this Be interesting to compare it to the Genicom ACE Laser Printer. They do 400x400 resolution (which looks great for fax) and are putting support in for printing G3 data directly. We are also some using RLL encoding with postscript printers. Seems to work fairly well. I was told the IIP was a fairly slow printer - 4 pages per minute engine? What kind of throughput do you actually get? >Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ?????? mention >PC Research,Inc.| WE'RE SHIPPING your >uunet!pcrat!rick| Ask about FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) FAX # >(201) 389-8963 | Or JetRoff - troff postprocessor for the HP {Laser,Desk}Jet Stuart Lynne | Looking for FAX software for XENIX/386 ?????? mention Unifax | WE'RE SHIPPING your uunet!van-bc!sl | Ask about UniFax - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) FAX # (604) 688-9963 | Or faxroff - troff postprocessor for the fax -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)
rick@pcrat.uucp (Rick Richardson) (12/31/89)
In article <129@van-bc.UUCP> sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne) writes: >In article <1989Dec30.071817.3232@pcrat.uucp> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes: >>>>>[re: HP LJ IIP printer] >> >>The compression mode refered to as TIFF 4.0 on the IIP is the PackBits >>compression mode. It is a straightforward extension to simple run length > >>The IIP is the fastest parallel interface laserprinter for this I should have also added "300DPI" to this statement, since a 400 DPI laser would be sent a 200DPI image, rather than being forced to print at higher resolution to maintain image quality. >We are also some using RLL encoding with postscript printers. Seems to >work fairly well. I haven't actually seen an under $6000 Postscript printer that could run the engine at full rated speed for even mundane typesetting tasks. PCL printers, on the other hand, can do this easily. Images, of course, are a different story for both, the bottleneck usually being the communications to the printer. >I was told the IIP was a fairly slow printer - 4 pages per minute engine? Yes, the engine is rated at 4 PPM. However, being a PCL printer, you can actually get very close to the 4PPM out of the engine. JetRoff will run the IIP engine at full speed in most cases, as it does the Series II. The exceptions are the initial delay while the first page is being transmitted, and if a page contains, say, a font sample sheet where a lot of glyphs have to be downloaded. >What kind of throughput do you actually get? The engine, if not starved for data, will run at 3.9 PPM or so. But, in these tests, the engine is starved or nearly starved. Depends on what resolution you'd like the image printed at. Here are some PCL byte counts for a three page FAX that we received with a large number of vertical stripes on each page (bad scanner). The original FAX image was 80K in T.4 format in case anybody cares. I'd call this document a pathological case that foiled our output optimizations for the older Series II. The IIP really shines for this worst case type of document: 100DPI 300DPI Series IIP 104K/61 secs/3PPM 296K/121 secs/1.5PPM Series II 344K/122 secs/1.5PPM 1367K/425 secs/.4PPM So, even though the IIP engine is rated at half of the Series II, it achieves at least twice the performance of the Series II for this type of printing. I won't quote the signatures again, since I try to limit the commercial stuff to after the "--". I see that Unifax claims to have implemented the troff FAX capability we had from day one. I wonder what answer Stuart has for our latest addition - FaxJet... -Rick -- Rick Richardson | Looking for FAX software for UNIX/386 ??? Ask About: |mention PC Research,Inc.| FaxiX - UNIX Facsimile System (tm) |your uunet!pcrat!rick| FaxJet - HP LJ PCL to FAX (Send WP,Word,Pagemaker...) |FAX # (201) 389-8963 | JetRoff - troff postprocessor for HP LaserJet and FAX |
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (01/02/90)
I coudn't resist: > Moving to UNIX to overcome the disadvantages of MS-DOS is much like > getting married to overcome the disadvantages of being single. I'd recommend either of these alternatives most heartily. :-> -- `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. 'U` Also <peter@ficc.lonestar.org> or <peter@sugar.lonestar.org>. "It was just dumb luck that Unix managed to break through the Stupidity Barrier and become popular in spite of its inherent elegance." -- gavin@krypton.sgi.com