rgonzal@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Ralph Gonzalez) (12/05/90)
The following are response(s) I got on my question about the performance
and reliability of the new Canon BJ10e 360 dpi bubble-jet printer, as used
with the Mac. In case you're interested, this printer was reviewed
for use with IBMs in the Nov. 1990 BYTE. To use it with a Mac requires
a QuickDraw or Postscript interpreter and the serial to parallel
cable. GDT (1-604-291-9121) makes JetLink Express, a QuickDraw interpreter
plus the "Paralink" (sp?) cable. They tell me to expect about 2-3 minutes
per page. TeleTypesetting makes a Postscript interpreter
(617-734-9700) which costs about the same and should give better accuracy with
Postscript drawing programs, but presumably is slower and hogs more
memory.
Oh, yes, the point of all this is that the BJ10e is said to have
better resolution than the HP DeskWriter, is portable, and costs only
$300-$350 at discount! Add about $200-$250 for the interpreter and cable (you
MUST get a serial-parallel converter cable) and maybe $75 for the auto
sheet feeder and the price is still lower than the DeskWriter's. My
guess, not having used the BJ10e nor being much of an expert on these
matters, is that the DeskWriter is faster and possibly more rugged -
but I could be wrong.
Please send me mail if you have anything to add. Also, to anyone who
replied directly to the network, could you please mail me a copy of
your post? Our news system was down during the week following my original
post so I missed that week's news. Thanks.
Ralph Gonzalez
rgonzal@chowder.rutgers.edu
**********************************************************************
I have not used the BJ10e, but have used a BJ10, the IBM clone model.
I cannot comment on speed for the 'e' model, the original was a tad
slow. Resolution was adequate - make sure you use the right paper!
Also regarding paper, after a few months, the paper feed (cut sheet)
became seriously flaky. Grabbing more than one sheet at a time,
sending the paper through at an angle, etc. We never did get the
optional add on tractor feed (reminiscient of Epson) to work properly,
but we didn't play with it a whole lot.
**********************************************************************
Okay, here's what I can tell you. My dad uses a Cannon BubbleJet in
the office with a Mac SE, although it it is not the same model number (I
can't remember it right now, but it has a wide-carriage). He has a
DeskWriter at home, on his Mac Plus. Sounds like a good person to
compare the two, eh? :-)
>From my experience, which is limited, both are very good. The BJ's
resolution is slightly less than the DW's, but more than acceptable.
The speed of the DW is also slightly faster (about 2-1/2 ppm versus
1-1/2), even though the SE is a slightly faster machine than the Plus. I
don't know whether the BJ can use a non-water-soluable ink as the DW can, or
how much the new cartridges cost and how available they are. HP's support
is better than Cannon's. The DW comes with a cable and its own fonts
(the four original LaserWriter families), but since my dad bought JetLink
Express for the Cannon at work, he's used that at home with the DW and
it works very well, giving all of the 35 standard LW+/NT typefaces, which
work up to 127 point. He's also used ATM with the DW, but hasn't tried it
on the BJ. The DW takes up less desk space than the BJ, and is prettier (in
my opinion), unless the model you're ordering is radically different than
the one I've seen. The sheet feeder on the DW works fine, BUT the
manual-feed slot is fixed, not adjustable, so you can't use paper of
odd width in it.
All of this is according to my memory of his opinions. If the Cannon
is a much better deal than the HP, I'd say go with it. If you have
specific questions about the two, mail me, I'll ask him and get back to you.
Personally, I like the DeskWriter. It was a cinch to set up and get
printing, and produces beautiful output. The BubbleJet was more of a
pain because of dealings with Cannon (getting a cable, software, etc), and
I think its print "spiders" more (this is probably the paper they're
using), but it's a close call.
**********************************************************************
That's all I got!
-Ralph