h+@nada.kth.se (07/01/90)
About printer drivers: You drop them into the system folder. That's it. No configuring, no fuss. About quality problems: As far as I remember, Apple offered to change the troublesome Quantum drives for free. What 286 clone manufacturer has done something similar (if they did, their clones wouldn't be cheap, and thus wouldn't make it into the comparisions made here) About incompatibilities: Programs breaking on new Apple computers seem to be programs written by non-mac software houses (i.e. ports from PC) and don't adhere to Inside Macintosh. THese programs generally aren't very mac-ish (IMHO) and aren't used by most mac users anyway. About the above: your mileage may vary h+ .
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (07/03/90)
In article <1990Jul1.125052.7037@kth.se> h+@nada.kth.se writes: >About printer drivers: You drop them into the system folder. >That's it. No configuring, no fuss. Is this true for the non-Apple drivers as well (MacPrint)? I mean, I'd HOPE that Apple requires no configuration for its own printers... >About quality problems: As far as I remember, Apple offered >to change the troublesome Quantum drives for free. What >286 clone manufacturer has done something similar (if they >did, their clones wouldn't be cheap, and thus wouldn't make >it into the comparisions made here) Most resellers offer very good warranties (usually a year parts and labor). Since clone shops use parts from other makers, these are frequently covered by the maker's warranties as well--most motherboards have 1-2 year warranties from the maker. Yes, having Apple cover everything is nice--whether or not it's worth the extra $$$ is not so clear... >About incompatibilities: Programs breaking on new Apple >computers seem to be programs written by non-mac software >houses (i.e. ports from PC) and don't adhere to Inside >Macintosh. THese programs generally aren't very mac-ish >(IMHO) and aren't used by most mac users anyway. I just broke MacPaint and Superpaint on a IIfx. I don't recall the Windows versions of these. Didn't MacPaint have problems on the Mac II a few years ago as well? Or is Claris a non-Mac software house (I've heard they're going to make some Windows stuff...) > h+ Aaron Wallace
gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu (07/03/90)
------- In article <1990Jul2.191321.23971@portia.Stanford.EDU>, aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes... >In article <1990Jul1.125052.7037@kth.se> h+@nada.kth.se writes: [...] >>About incompatibilities: Programs breaking on new Apple >>computers seem to be programs written by non-mac software >>houses (i.e. ports from PC) and don't adhere to Inside >>Macintosh. THese programs generally aren't very mac-ish >>(IMHO) and aren't used by most mac users anyway. > >I just broke MacPaint and Superpaint on a IIfx. I don't recall the Windows >versions of these. Didn't MacPaint have problems on the Mac II a few years >ago as well? Or is Claris a non-Mac software house (I've heard they're going >to make some Windows stuff...) MacPaint was not written by Claris (although MacPaint II was). MacPaint was written by Bill Atkinson, who helped write the Mac ToolBox. Bill is a software genius, but he doesn't always follow Mac's rules. This is why MacPaint broke: it made assumptions about a one-bit screen. SuperPaint did the same thing. That's not Apple's fault. According to the New York Times the other day, Claris will become a fully-owned subsidiary of Apple. In addition to coming out with Mac software products as they do now, they will also make add-ons for the Mac system, etc. Although they were considering doing Windows and Next stuff, it seems unlikely now, since they'll be fully owned by Apple again. Robert ============================================================================ = gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu * generic disclaimer: * "It's more fun to = = * all my opinions are * compute" = = * mine * -Kraftwerk = ============================================================================
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (07/04/90)
In article <1990Jul2.191321.23971@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > In article <1990Jul1.125052.7037@kth.se> h+@nada.kth.se writes: > >About printer drivers: You drop them into the system folder. > >That's it. No configuring, no fuss. > > Is this true for the non-Apple drivers as well (MacPrint)? I mean, I'd > HOPE that Apple requires no configuration for its own printers... No configuration is required for any printer driver that supports Apple's printing architecture. Admittedly that architecture is largely undocumented, but several companies have written successful drivers for the Mac nonetheless. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) (07/04/90)
In article <1990Jul2.210825.2095@midway.uchicago.edu> gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: > MacPaint was not written by Claris (although MacPaint II was). To be strictly accurate, MacPaint II was brought to market by Claris, after it was written at Apple. David Casseres Exclaimer: Hey!
drc@claris.com (Dennis Cohen) (07/05/90)
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >In article <1990Jul2.210825.2095@midway.uchicago.edu> >gft_robert@gsbacd.uchicago.edu writes: >> MacPaint was not written by Claris (although MacPaint II was). >To be strictly accurate, MacPaint II was brought to market by Claris, >after it was written at Apple. To be strictly accurate, there is not and has not been a MacPaint II -- the product is MacPaint v2.0 and David is correct that it was written at Apple (by J. David Ramsey -- now with Aapps) and that it was brought to market by Claris. -- Dennis Cohen Claris Corp. **************************************************** Disclaimer: Any opinions expressed above are _MINE_!
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/05/90)
casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >In article <1990Jul2.191321.23971@portia.Stanford.EDU> >aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >> In article <1990Jul1.125052.7037@kth.se> h+@nada.kth.se writes: >> >About printer drivers: You drop them into the system folder. >> >That's it. No configuring, no fuss. >> >> Is this true for the non-Apple drivers as well (MacPrint)? I mean, I'd >> HOPE that Apple requires no configuration for its own printers... >No configuration is required for any printer driver that supports Apple's >printing architecture. Admittedly that architecture is largely >undocumented, but several companies have written successful drivers for >the Mac nonetheless. This either implies that the printer driver can query the printer about the resources (memory, fonts, resolution, paper size, ...) it has available - which is not possible on monodirectional links -, or it restricts the printer driver to worst case asumptions. Wolfgang Strobl
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) (07/05/90)
In article <2988@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >This either implies that the printer driver can query the printer about >the resources (memory, fonts, resolution, paper size, ...) it has >available - which is not possible on monodirectional links -, or it >restricts the printer driver to worst case asumptions. Actually, printers on the Mac are connected to a serial port which is bidirectional. If the printer is out of paper, for example, the Mac itself alerts the user that the printer is not ready to print and that perhaps paper has not been loaded. Are one-way printer connections the norm in the MS-DOS world? -- Mark Wilkins
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) (07/05/90)
In article <2988@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > >>In article <1990Jul2.191321.23971@portia.Stanford.EDU> >>aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: >>> In article <1990Jul1.125052.7037@kth.se> h+@nada.kth.se writes: >>> >About printer drivers: You drop them into the system folder. >>> >That's it. No configuring, no fuss. >>> >>> Is this true for the non-Apple drivers as well (MacPrint)? I mean, I'd >>> HOPE that Apple requires no configuration for its own printers... > >>No configuration is required for any printer driver that supports Apple's >>printing architecture. Admittedly that architecture is largely >>undocumented, but several companies have written successful drivers for >>the Mac nonetheless. > > This either implies that the printer driver can query the printer about > the resources (memory, fonts, resolution, paper size, ...) it has > available - which is not possible on monodirectional links -, or it > restricts the printer driver to worst case asumptions. You win the brass ring! The Mac print drivers and print architecture are intelligent- and if you (for example) have a LaserWriter driver, it *can* check to see what type of printer it's talking to... Surprise! > > Wolfgang Strobl -- \ C Irby \ "The following will be a test of the ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu \ Emergency .Signature System. ac08@untvax \ This is only a test. \ Beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep." \
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) (07/05/90)
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >This either implies that the printer driver can query the printer about >the resources (memory, fonts, resolution, paper size, ...) it has >available - which is not possible on monodirectional links -, or it >restricts the printer driver to worst case asumptions. Since a print driver is written for a specific printer instead of a set of printers there is no such limitation. When you select a specific print driver, you're specifing that I want to print to that printer, therefore the print driver can use all the capabilities that that printer offers... In addition most printers on the Mac are connected through the serial port provided with the Mac. Therefore it is a rare printer indeed that you don't have bi-directional communications. To successfully connect up a printer to the Mac generally requires the printer to have a level of "intelligence" that PC printers can not have since they could be controlled by the bus directly. In addition, even with Windows, the PC DOS is still primarily a character based OS, and graphics are the extra mile that you don't necessarily have to provide. For simple character based printers you don't need a bi-directional link cause it's just a stream of characters, one size fits all. The Mac's *only* print mode is graphics, therefore by simply requiring graphics at the most primative level means that the basic Mac printer has to have a high level of functionality than a basic DOS printer. There aren't too many graphics printers availible today that can't be queried as to their capabilities... Any one who has configured a DOS printer, verses a Macintosh will tell you that this is one of the few area where the Mac has a clear advantage. And even though MS provides many print drivers, there are still a lot of big DOS software houses that role their own print drivers, and with that you are back to square one of what a pain it is to configure a printer on a DOS machine. On the Macintosh there is *ONE* way to select a printer, period. And you don't even have to modify your config.sys file to do it ;-) -- daveo@apple.com David M. O'Rourke _______________________________________________________________________________ I do not speak for Apple in *ANY* official capacity.
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (07/05/90)
In article <2988@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: > > >>No configuration is required for any printer driver that supports Apple's >>printing architecture. Admittedly that architecture is largely >>undocumented, but several companies have written successful drivers for >>the Mac nonetheless. > >This either implies that the printer driver can query the printer about >the resources (memory, fonts, resolution, paper size, ...) it has >available - which is not possible on monodirectional links -, or it >restricts the printer driver to worst case asumptions. What monodirectional links? In any case, it is possible for the users of a printer such as the ImageWriter to change the paper size that the computer believes is in the printer via the Page Setup dialog box (though it defaults to standard 8.5x11 on US systems). Fonts don't matter-- the mac nearly always prints in graphics mode (except in 'draft', where it uses the printers default font). For postscript printers, there is no monodirectional link, so the printer can be queried. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions? Hey! Bush has NO LIPS!
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/05/90)
wilkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Mark Wilkins) writes: >In article <2988@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>This either implies that the printer driver can query the printer about >>the resources (memory, fonts, resolution, paper size, ...) it has >>available - which is not possible on monodirectional links -, or it >>restricts the printer driver to worst case asumptions. > Actually, printers on the Mac are connected to a serial port which is >bidirectional. If the printer is out of paper, for example, the Mac itself >alerts the user that the printer is not ready to print and that perhaps >paper has not been loaded. > Are one-way printer connections the norm in the MS-DOS world? In a way. The most popular interface is the Centronics type parallel interface. It is faster than the usual serial links, because it transports data a byte at a time, not a bit at a time. It has a monodirectional 8-bit data channel, and control lines in both directions. There is a reset line going to the printer, and the printer can report out of paper, busy and general error conditions back to the computer on separate lines. The whole design is quite bulletproof, cheap and requires nearly no protocol between printer and computer. Its disadvantages are: limited cable length and no data channel back to the computer. (On IBM's PS/2 machines the parallel port is bidirecitonal, but I don't know any printers which have a bidirectional Centronics type interface). So this interface can do what you gave as examples of a bidirectional link, too. But it is not possible for a printer to report things like "I don't have font yxz" or "I have the following fonts installed" back to the computer. Let me restate my question. Does a Macintosh printer driver query the printer about such things, i.e. what font cartriges are installed, whether the paper is in to upper or in the lower reservoir, how much memory it has installed, which paper size is loaded ...? If not, how does a printer driver get this information, if there is no configuration necessary? Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.h>
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/05/90)
ac08@vaxb.acs.unt.edu ((C. Irby)) writes: >You win the brass ring! >The Mac print drivers and print architecture are intelligent- and if you >(for example) have a LaserWriter driver, it *can* check to see what type >of printer it's talking to... >Surprise! Thank you for your kind words. What about not so intelligent printers? You don't care, I presume? Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.h>
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/06/90)
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>This either implies that the printer driver can query the printer about >>the resources (memory, fonts, resolution, paper size, ...) it has >>available - which is not possible on monodirectional links -, or it >>restricts the printer driver to worst case asumptions. > Since a print driver is written for a specific printer instead of a set of >printers there is no such limitation. When you select a specific print >driver, you're specifing that I want to print to that printer, therefore >the print driver can use all the capabilities that that printer offers... What do you call a specific printer, here? Even one and the same printer can have different capabilities at different times, for example if you install a tractor feeder on a needle printer or remove a font cartridge on an ink jet printer. > In addition most printers on the Mac are connected through the serial >port provided with the Mac. Therefore it is a rare printer indeed that you >don't have bi-directional communications. Most PC clones offer both serial and parallel interfaces. Both can be used to connect a printer to it. People prefer to use the parallel port, because it is cheaper and simpler to use, as I explained in a separate message. Serial links are symmetric, parallel links aren't. > To successfully connect up a printer to the Mac generally requires the >printer to have a level of "intelligence" that PC printers can not have since >they could be controlled by the bus directly. In addition, even with Windows, Which bus? ^^^ >the PC DOS is still primarily a character based OS, and graphics are the >extra mile that you don't necessarily have to provide. For simple character >based printers you don't need a bi-directional link cause it's just a stream >of characters, one size fits all. The Mac's *only* print mode is graphics, >therefore by simply requiring graphics at the most primative level means that >the basic Mac printer has to have a high level of functionality than a basic >DOS printer. There aren't too many graphics printers availible today that >can't be queried as to their capabilities... What do you mean by "even with Windows, the PC DOS is still primarily a character based OS"? Is it a statement about Windows (then it is plain wrong), or is it a statement about PCDOS (then it's true, but not very meaningfull). Anyway. The problem Windows has (and the Mac OS has not) is that it has to support a much broader range of printers, from the cheap 9-needle-printer to the big Postscript RIP. In my opinion this support is an advantage. Just one more question. How do you print into a file, if the printer is not physically available? It cannot be queried in this case. Don't tell me that the printer driver just stores the abstract graphics operations into a file instead of sending it to the printer. How can it know the specifics of the printer, if it is not available, and if there is no configuration at all? > Any one who has configured a DOS printer, verses a Macintosh will tell you >that this is one of the few area where the Mac has a clear advantage. And >even though MS provides many print drivers, there are still a lot of big >DOS software houses that role their own print drivers, and with that you are >back to square one of what a pain it is to configure a printer on a DOS >machine. This is excactly the explanation why I prefer MS Windows over the usual DOS stuff and try to convince the people I support here to switch from old DOS applications to Windows. It runs on the same hardware, supports most common printers, there is just one printer driver for one printer, not as many as there are applications. And it is even possible to use different printers with the same documents and data just by installing a different printer driver and telling it a few things about the new printer, once. As long as the printers have similar capabilities (similar fonts, i.e. a fat Times Roman in 12 pt, for example) all printers look the same to the application (or the user), if they don't care about the differences. > On the Macintosh there is *ONE* way to select a printer, period. And you >don't even have to modify your config.sys file to do it ;-) It is not difficult under Windows, either. Simply click on the printer icon in the control panel application and tell it which printer you have. If it needs more information from you, it will ask you. And you don't even have to close the applications you are working with. ;-) Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) (07/06/90)
In article <3040@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >So this interface can do what you gave as examples of a bidirectional >link, too. But it is not possible for a printer to report things >like "I don't have font yxz" or "I have the following fonts installed" >back to the computer. > >Let me restate my question. Does a Macintosh printer driver query >the printer about such things, i.e. what font cartriges are installed, >whether the paper is in to upper or in the lower reservoir, how much >memory it has installed, which paper size is loaded ...? > >If not, how does a printer driver get this information, if there >is no configuration necessary? This depends on the printer-- on printers with sufficient "intelligence", such as most PostScript printers, a driver will be able to query the printer about such things. On "dumb" printers like the Apple Imagewriter, the user is able to configure the driver using the standard "Page Setup" command. In addition, user-controllable options on all printers are controlled through this command. As for speed, most fast printers go through either AppleTalk or SCSI. Slow printers like the Imagewriter usually can't keep up with serial data in graphics mode anyway. -- Matthew T. Russotto russotto@eng.umd.edu russotto@wam.umd.edu ][, ][+, ///, ///+, //e, //c, IIGS, //c+ --- Any questions? Hey! Bush has NO LIPS!
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/06/90)
russotto@eng.umd.edu (Matthew T. Russotto) writes: >In article <2988@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>casseres@apple.com (David Casseres) writes: >> >>>No configuration is required for any printer driver that supports Apple's >>>printing architecture. Admittedly that architecture is largely >>>undocumented, but several companies have written successful drivers for >>>the Mac nonetheless. >> >>This either implies that the printer driver can query the printer about >>the resources (memory, fonts, resolution, paper size, ...) it has >>available - which is not possible on monodirectional links -, or it >>restricts the printer driver to worst case asumptions. >What monodirectional links? In any case, it is possible for the users of >a printer such as the ImageWriter to change the paper size that the >computer believes is in the printer via the Page Setup dialog box (though >it defaults to standard 8.5x11 on US systems). Fonts don't matter-- the mac >nearly always prints in graphics mode (except in 'draft', where it uses the >printers default font). For postscript printers, there is no monodirectional >link, so the printer can be queried. So there IS a configuration necessary for some printers on the Mac. Fonts do matter for me. I own a HP DeskJet printer with two ROM cartriges which contain fonts. Windows is able to send a mixture of graphics data and requests to use the ROM fonts to the printer. Using the printer's ROM fonts is much faster than sending raster data, and it even looks better, because the internal resolution of the cartridge fonts is higher than 300x300 dpi. I can print the same document on the QMS Postscript printer in my office and on the DeskJet at home and get very similar results. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (07/06/90)
In article <3040@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > >Let me restate my question. Does a Macintosh printer driver query >the printer about such things, i.e. what font cartriges are installed, >whether the paper is in to upper or in the lower reservoir, how much >memory it has installed, which paper size is loaded ...? Yes. The ImageWriter driver checks to see if the printer is an ImageWriter I or II, and the LaserWriter driver asks the printer about the dictionaries, fonts, etc. that is has downloaded. It isn't essential that every Macintosh printer driver do this. Querying the printer eliminates the need for the user to configure things. (For example, we could ship separate ImageWriter I and II drivers, but then the user would have to select the proper one manually.) -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) (07/06/90)
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >What do you call a specific printer, here? Even one and the same >printer can have different capabilities at different times, >for example if you install a tractor feeder on a needle printer or >remove a font cartridge on an ink jet printer. A tractor feed being installed/not-installed is unimportant. Most of of the print driver's are written for a Specific printer, or query the printer as to it's font list. But you are thinking DOS only. Most of the ink jet printers for the mac, including the Deskwriter, store the font's on the Macintosh and not the printer. In addition the Macintosh rarely sends just the character to the printer. Rather it typically sends a bitmap to the printer that happens to look like text. So the only relivant info for a particular printer type is it's maximum resolution, dpi. And then the Macintosh creates a bit map at the resolution and sends the graphics to the printer. >Most PC clones offer both serial and parallel interfaces. Both can >be used to connect a printer to it. People prefer to use the >parallel port, because it is cheaper and simpler to use, as I explained >in a separate message. Serial links are symmetric, parallel links aren't. I'm not saying PC's don't have serial ports. What I said it the Serial port is the prefered Mac connection, and given a serial port you have a lot more capability for interaction with the printer. Since the serial port is standard on the Macintosh the printer drivers can make assumptions about what sort of info will be availible at run time that you can't always make about a print driver for a DOS machine. >What do you mean by "even with Windows, the PC DOS is still primarily a >character based OS"? Is it a statement about Windows (then it is plain >wrong), or is it a statement about PCDOS (then it's true, but not very >meaningfull). Windows is build on top of DOS, dos is a character based OS. It has no standard graphic routines, and no standard graphics model. NOTE: A graphics model goes beyond simple color specification and point ploting, it includes standard font handleling, a graphics plane for ploting in, and OS supported graphics functions for ovals, squares, shading and so forth. The PC is a text based OS because in has no *standard* graphics model that cover's even half of what QuickDraw is capabile of. And since MS Windows is based on DOS there are still left-overs of a character based model in the printing and screen handling routines that you won't get away from until you choose a new OS for your base. In addition there has to be a standard way for handleing non-raster based graphics and so-forth... The statement is only meaningless to people who can't think beyond their favorite machine, and QuickDraw while it is good, doesn't meet a lot of the criteria for a complete graphics model, but it does a better job than MS Windows or DOS. >Anyway. The problem Windows has (and the Mac OS has not) is that it >has to support a much broader range of printers, from the cheap >9-needle-printer to the big Postscript RIP. In my opinion this support >is an advantage. It may be an advantage, but that means that all software to be fully compatible has to be designed to a lower common demoninater than on the Mac. The Macintosh requires a high capability printer than a DOS machine. This isn't a bad thing. It means that Macintosh Software can assume a highly level of functionallity in their output devices, and people won't accept a lower quality standard. The Macintosh can support just as many printers as the PC, if all of those printers where up to a Macintosh standard, but most of the cheap PC printers will not do an adequite job of printing compared to other Macintosh printers, and therefore can't compete. >Just one more question. How do you print into a file, if the >printer is not physically available? It cannot be queried in this case. >Don't tell me that the printer driver just stores the abstract >graphics operations into a file instead of sending it to the printer. >How can it know the specifics of the printer, if it is not available, >and if there is no configuration at all? You don't. The Macintosh print arch. requires the printer to be able to communicate back to the computer. Not a limitation, it's a requirement that allows the Mac to enjoy a higher level of basic printer functionality than an equivilant DOS machine. If you want a spooler or print server your software must behave like the printer it's emulating, there is no batch dump mode where the Mac just assumes the printer is there and doesn't pay any attention. >installing a different printer driver and telling it a few things >about the new printer, once. As long as the printers have similar Why should I have to tell it anything about the printer. That's the drivers job, not the users. -- daveo@apple.com David M. O'Rourke _______________________________________________________________________________ I do not speak for Apple in *ANY* official capacity.
barr@Apple.COM (Ron Barr) (07/06/90)
I've been following this discussion for some time now, and it's fun but frustrating. Wolfgang appears to to be honestly interested in an objective discussion but I think that explaining the Mac architecture to someone unfamiliar to it is like explaining baseball to someone over the phone (remember the old Bob Newhart routine?) I'm sure that Windows people could argue the opposite point. I'm obviously a Mac bigot (I work at Apple because I love the mac - not the other way around), but as a computer fan I'm glad to see Windows 3.0. It makes everyone more competitive. On the other hand, I know what Apple's working on, there's still life in this old horse. Don't write Apple off too quickly. Also, Windows will force everyone to look at something-other-than-DOS, and the Mac is by far the most usable, highest performance graphics-based personal computer out there, no matter what Microsoft's PR department would have you believe. Ron
amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet (07/06/90)
In article <3044@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>What monodirectional links? In any case, it is possible for the users of >>a printer such as the ImageWriter to change the paper size that the >>computer believes is in the printer via the Page Setup dialog box (though >>it defaults to standard 8.5x11 on US systems). Fonts don't matter-- the mac >>nearly always prints in graphics mode (except in 'draft', where it uses the >>printers default font). For postscript printers, there is no monodirectional >>link, so the printer can be queried. > > So there IS a configuration necessary for some printers on the Mac. > > Fonts do matter for me. I own a HP DeskJet printer with two ROM cartriges > which contain fonts. Windows is able to send a mixture of graphics data > and requests to use the ROM fonts to the printer. Using the printer's > ROM fonts is much faster than sending raster data, and it even looks better, > because the internal resolution of the cartridge fonts is higher than > 300x300 dpi. I can print the same document on the QMS Postscript printer > in my office and on the DeskJet at home and get very similar results. Cartridge? I am not going back to using cartridges. Sorry. Right now, I have all the fonts I need on my hard drive. I use my ImageWriter at home for roughs for letters and such. Simply go to the chooser and select it. End of configuration. When I do layouts for brochures, Ads, etc., I simply go to the chooser, select LaserWriter (even though I don't have one at home), and create my project. I can then save the file to PostScript and download to my imagesetter and get 2400 dpi if I like. If they do not have the Fonts I used, not to worry, by creating a PS file, the Mac also downloads Font info I want it to. Cartridge's are archaic. There are inflexible, and a pain to use. By the Mac's configuration, I can go from ImageWriter to LaserWriter to CompuGraphic 9600 all using an SE. The only configuration I have to do is go to the chooser and select my printer. (Also, how many fonts can you use at one time with cartridges? I remember only being able to use up to three or five at once. That's a limitation in itself.) And I think you get comparable results with the DeskJet because HP designed it that way. As a 300dpi non-postscript printer. I know people who have it for the Mac and they too get quality results with it. > > Wolfgang Strobl > #include <std.disclaimer.hpp> ________________________ Andrei Herasimchuk Disclaimer: Marketing Director These are my opinions. Please Specular Int'l don't repeat them to my boss 'cause he hears them everyday already! bitnet: amherasimchu@amherst snail: P.O. Box 888, Amherst, MA 01004-0888 413.256.3166
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (07/07/90)
In article <42681@apple.Apple.COM> daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > A tractor feed being installed/not-installed is unimportant. Yes it is--the driver may have to pause after each page to let the user put in a new sheet. With a tractor this isn't necessary. True, some printers have a page-pause feature, but for thise that don't... >Most of >of the print driver's are written for a Specific printer, or query the >printer as to it's font list. But you are thinking DOS only. Most of >the ink jet printers for the mac, including the Deskwriter, store the font's >on the Macintosh and not the printer. In addition the Macintosh rarely >sends just the character to the printer. Rather it typically sends a bitmap >to the printer that happens to look like text. So the only relivant info >for a particular printer type is it's maximum resolution, dpi. And then >the Macintosh creates a bit map at the resolution and sends the graphics to >the printer. I thought the Mac sent PostScript to the LaserWriters, using a bitmap only if there wasn't a matching font on the printer... I know, System 7 will do it differently, and so will Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0... Still, I'm not convinced that configuration can always be handled automatically, or should be. If a font cartridge is in the printer it should be used. And if there is no was for the printer to communicate its contents, configuration is necessary. [ stuff on sereal connections deleted ] > Windows is build on top of DOS, dos is a character based OS. It has no >standard graphic routines, and no standard graphics model. UNIX is a character based OS. UNIX has no standard graphics routines. Therefore the NeXT and most workstations are incapable graphics machines? >NOTE: A graphics >model goes beyond simple color specification and point ploting, it includes >standard font handleling, a graphics plane for ploting in, and OS supported >graphics functions for ovals, squares, shading and so forth. The way to think of DOS and Windows is: DOS is the file system and Windows is the OS. Windows supports all the above and more. >The PC is >a text based OS because in has no *standard* graphics model that cover's even >half of what QuickDraw is capabile of. DOS can't. Windows can. >And since MS Windows is based on DOS >there are still left-overs of a character based model in the printing and >screen handling routines that you won't get away from until you choose a new >OS for your base. Windows doesn't print through DOS. Windows doesn't access the screen through DOS. No DOS limitations here. What left-overs did you have in mind, other than those associated with the DOS file system which we all know about? > The statement is only meaningless to people who can't think beyond their >favorite machine, and QuickDraw while it is good, doesn't meet a lot of the >criteria for a complete graphics model, but it does a better job than MS >Windows or DOS. > >>Anyway. The problem Windows has (and the Mac OS has not) is that it >>has to support a much broader range of printers, from the cheap >>9-needle-printer to the big Postscript RIP. In my opinion this support >>is an advantage. > > It may be an advantage, but that means that all software to be fully >compatible has to be designed to a lower common demoninater than on the Mac. Not at all--it just means that the program can't make wild assumptions about what it's printing to. In general most Windows calls assume that the devices are far more capable than they really are; for example Windows has calls for quite complex sound that isn't possible on the PC speaker. On the other hand, a driver which assumes too much must be written for a certain common denominator. >The Macintosh requires a high capability printer than a DOS machine. This >isn't a bad thing. It means that Macintosh Software can assume a highly >level of functionallity in their output devices, and people won't accept >a lower quality standard. The Macintosh can support just as many printers >as the PC, if all of those printers where up to a Macintosh standard, but most >of the cheap PC printers will not do an adequite job of printing compared to >other Macintosh printers, and therefore can't compete. Most PC dot matrix printers I've seen do much better than the imagewriter, and most lasers have about the same output (except the LaserJet III, which is much better). Am I missing something? >>Just one more question. How do you print into a file, if the >>printer is not physically available? It cannot be queried in this case. >>Don't tell me that the printer driver just stores the abstract >>graphics operations into a file instead of sending it to the printer. >>How can it know the specifics of the printer, if it is not available, >>and if there is no configuration at all? > > You don't. The Macintosh print arch. requires the printer to be able to >communicate back to the computer. Not a limitation, it's a requirement that >allows the Mac to enjoy a higher level of basic printer functionality than >an equivilant DOS machine. If you want a spooler or print server your software >must behave like the printer it's emulating, there is no batch dump mode >where the Mac just assumes the printer is there and doesn't pay any attention. Is this why background printing on the Mac is limited to laser printers, which need it least? > Why should I have to tell it anything about the printer. That's the drivers >job, not the users. >-- >daveo@apple.com David M. O'Rourke Aaron Wallace
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/07/90)
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: >strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >>What do you call a specific printer, here? Even one and the same >>printer can have different capabilities at different times, >>for example if you install a tractor feeder on a needle printer or >>remove a font cartridge on an ink jet printer. > A tractor feed being installed/not-installed is unimportant. Most of No. It may result in a different paper size or require a different handling on the user's side. >of the print driver's are written for a Specific printer, or query the >printer as to it's font list. But you are thinking DOS only. Most of >the ink jet printers for the mac, including the Deskwriter, store the font's >on the Macintosh and not the printer. In addition the Macintosh rarely >sends just the character to the printer. Rather it typically sends a bitmap >to the printer that happens to look like text. So the only relivant info >for a particular printer type is it's maximum resolution, dpi. And then >the Macintosh creates a bit map at the resolution and sends the graphics to >the printer. Is this true for Postscript printers, too? What a a shame. ;-) I think we have a different philosophy here. On the Macintosh one prints to an abstract graphical output device, and the printers have to fit that model. This is nice, clean and expensive. Windows on the other hand tries to make all the capabilities available the printer out there have. Many of the supported printers where built or designed with CP/M or DOS or something similar in mind. This does not make them useless. Many of these printers can a) mix graphics data and character data and b) put a character string composed of the printer's hardware font on an arbitrary pixel position on the page. All what's needed is a system which can report metrics information back to the application program to ensure proper positoning and sizing of the different parts of the whole picture. >>Most PC clones offer both serial and parallel interfaces. Both can >>be used to connect a printer to it. People prefer to use the >>parallel port, because it is cheaper and simpler to use, as I explained >>in a separate message. Serial links are symmetric, parallel links aren't. > I'm not saying PC's don't have serial ports. What I said it the Serial >port is the prefered Mac connection, and given a serial port you have a lot >more capability for interaction with the printer. Since the serial port >is standard on the Macintosh the printer drivers can make assumptions about >what sort of info will be availible at run time that you can't always make >about a print driver for a DOS machine. Yes, this is an advantage, as most restrictions to a particular interface are. What about printing to a file or to a remote server. How do you query the printer in this case? >>What do you mean by "even with Windows, the PC DOS is still primarily a >>character based OS"? Is it a statement about Windows (then it is plain >>wrong), or is it a statement about PCDOS (then it's true, but not very >>meaningfull). > Windows is build on top of DOS, dos is a character based OS. It has no >standard graphic routines, and no standard graphics model. NOTE: A graphics >model goes beyond simple color specification and point ploting, it includes >standard font handleling, a graphics plane for ploting in, and OS supported >graphics functions for ovals, squares, shading and so forth. The PC is >a text based OS because in has no *standard* graphics model that cover's even >half of what QuickDraw is capabile of. And since MS Windows is based on DOS >there are still left-overs of a character based model in the printing and >screen handling routines that you won't get away from until you choose a new >OS for your base. In addition there has to be a standard way for handleing >non-raster based graphics and so-forth... Excuse me, but the logic in your first two sentences is not very conclusive. Windows is built on top of DOS and uses it's file system, only. DOS is a character based OS. What graphic routines it may or may not have doesn't matter - Windows does not use or emulate them, anyway. Windows version 3 can emulate some display hardware, which DOS applications expect to have access to, because there is not even a usable character based DOS support for it. There seem to exist PC emulators on the Mac. Would you blame the Mac to be a character based machine because of that? The graphics model of Window includes standard font handling, a graphics device context for ploting in, and there are OS supported graphics functions for ovals, squares, shading an so forth. There is even a SetPixel function in the OS, which is not used very often, because it does not fit well into the graphics model. The screen handling of Windows has nothing to do with DOS - it does not even use the BIOS-ROM. > The statement is only meaningless to people who can't think beyond their >favorite machine, and QuickDraw while it is good, doesn't meet a lot of the >criteria for a complete graphics model, but it does a better job than MS >Windows or DOS. I haven't said that it is meaningless to me, I have said that a statement about the character restrictions of DOS is meaningless in a discussion about the capabilities of Windows. I stay to my statement. I am sure that QuickDraw does a better job than Windows or DOS. Are you sure that it does a better job than MS Window *and* DOS? >>Anyway. The problem Windows has (and the Mac OS has not) is that it >>has to support a much broader range of printers, from the cheap >>9-needle-printer to the big Postscript RIP. In my opinion this support >>is an advantage. > It may be an advantage, but that means that all software to be fully >compatible has to be designed to a lower common demoninater than on the Mac. >The Macintosh requires a high capability printer than a DOS machine. This >isn't a bad thing. It means that Macintosh Software can assume a highly >level of functionallity in their output devices, and people won't accept >a lower quality standard. The Macintosh can support just as many printers >as the PC, if all of those printers where up to a Macintosh standard, but most >of the cheap PC printers will not do an adequite job of printing compared to >other Macintosh printers, and therefore can't compete. Sometimes on has to trade functionality for quality. >>Just one more question. How do you print into a file, if the >>printer is not physically available? It cannot be queried in this case. >>Don't tell me that the printer driver just stores the abstract >>graphics operations into a file instead of sending it to the printer. >>How can it know the specifics of the printer, if it is not available, >>and if there is no configuration at all? > You don't. The Macintosh print arch. requires the printer to be able to >communicate back to the computer. Not a limitation, it's a requirement that >allows the Mac to enjoy a higher level of basic printer functionality than >an equivilant DOS machine. If you want a spooler or print server your software >must behave like the printer it's emulating, there is no batch dump mode >where the Mac just assumes the printer is there and doesn't pay any attention. Rule 1: The architecture requires the printer to be able to communicate back to the computer. Rule 2: If this isn't the case, see Rule 1. I see a problem here. If all servers and print spoolers have to be able to emulate all the supported printers, you lose all the advantages of the dynamic binding of printer capabilities and get a maintenance problem. >>installing a different printer driver and telling it a few things >>about the new printer, once. As long as the printers have similar > Why should I have to tell it anything about the printer. That's the drivers >job, not the users. Partially. I agree, as long as there is a communication path, and the user does not care. But sometimes there is no path, or the user cares. Wolfgang Strobl #include <thick.fat.disclaimer.hpp>
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/07/90)
barr@Apple.COM (Ron Barr) writes: >Wolfgang appears to to be honestly interested in an objective discussion but >I think that explaining the Mac architecture to someone unfamiliar to it is >like explaining baseball to someone over the phone (remember the old Bob >Newhart routine?) I'm sure that Windows people could argue the opposite point. Yes. Yes, but it's fun. Yes. >I'm obviously a Mac bigot (I work at Apple because I love the mac - not the >other way around), but as a computer fan I'm glad to see Windows 3.0. It makes >everyone more competitive. I couldn't agree more. >On the other hand, I know what Apple's working on, there's still life in >this old horse. Don't write Apple off too quickly. Nobody does. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.and.blurb>
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (07/07/90)
In article <1990Jul6.174126.18953@portia.Stanford.EDU> aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) writes: > >Still, I'm not convinced that configuration can always be handled >automatically, or should be. If a font cartridge is in the printer it should >be used. And if there is no was for the printer to communicate its contents, >configuration is necessary. This is correct. The difference between Mac and PC printer drivers is more one of philosophy. Apple's philosophy is that printers should communicate back to the system so that the system can do the correct thing for the user. If Apple were to ship a printer that took font cartridges, I'm sure that the printer would have a mechanism to query what cartridge was installed. In the PC world the emphasis is on supporting as many printers as possible, not all of which can communicate back to the system. Neither of these are absolute. One can write a Mac printer driver that requires the user to configure the driver (as to font cartridge, communication protocol, etc.) I'm sure that one can write a PC/Windows driver that communicates with the printer. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/17/90)
amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: >In article <3044@gmdzi.UUCP>, strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >> >> Fonts do matter for me. I own a HP DeskJet printer with two ROM cartriges >> which contain fonts. Windows is able to send a mixture of graphics data >> and requests to use the ROM fonts to the printer. Using the printer's >> ROM fonts is much faster than sending raster data, and it even looks better, >> because the internal resolution of the cartridge fonts is higher than >> 300x300 dpi. I can print the same document on the QMS Postscript printer >> in my office and on the DeskJet at home and get very similar results. >Cartridge? I am not going back to using cartridges. Sorry. Right now, I have >all the fonts I need on my hard drive. I use my ImageWriter at home for roughs >for letters and such. Simply go to the chooser and select it. End of >configuration. So what? Right now, I have all the fonts on my printer, where they belong. I have two printer drivers installed, one for Postscript, one for the DeskJet. I told the Postscript driver that I have/use a QMS PS-810, and I told the DeskJet driver that I have the R and the T cardridge. I did this once, during installation of Windows 3. I have selected the DeskJet as the system default printer, so everything goes to the DeskJet by default, and all applications know that the default printer has Helvetica and TmsRmn in all sizes between 4pt and 14pt. Occasionally I want to include a picture into a TeX document, by using the ability of our TeX drivers on the MVS mainframe to insert EPS pictures. Because the Postscript driver is already configured for EPS output and for printing to a file, all I have to do is to switch printers and print. >When I do layouts for brochures, Ads, etc., I simply go to the chooser, select >LaserWriter (even though I don't have one at home), and create my project. I >can then save the file to PostScript and download to my imagesetter and get >2400 dpi if I like. If they do not have the Fonts I used, not to worry, by >creating a PS file, the Mac also downloads Font info I want it to. Nice, but what is different to the way it is done under Windows? >Cartridge's are archaic. There are inflexible, and a pain to use. By the >Mac's configuration, I can go from ImageWriter to LaserWriter to CompuGraphic >9600 all using an SE. The only configuration I have to do is go to the chooser >and select my printer. (Also, how many fonts can you use at one time with >cartridges? I remember only being able to use up to three or five at once. >That's a limitation in itself.) Sure, cartridges are archaic. But they are fast and cheap. I really don't know why they should be a pain to use. As long as I use similar fonts, I can switch between many very different printers just by choosing the one I want to use, under Windows. And, yes, I can use all the fonts of all the cartridges which fit into my DeskJet at the same time, on the same page. (I haven't tried that, but there is no obvious technical limit here, and I wouldn't want to do it, anyway). >And I think you get comparable results with the DeskJet because HP designed it >that way. As a 300dpi non-postscript printer. I know people who have it for >the Mac and they too get quality results with it. I would like to know how fast the DeskWriter is compared to the DeskJet. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) (07/17/90)
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: >I would like to know how fast the DeskWriter is compared to the >DeskJet. I believe it is faster if your force the DeskJet to do all graphics like the Mac dump's to the DeskWriter. On the DeskWriter all the imaging is done on the Macintosh and dumped to deskwriter over a 19200 bps comm link. In addition I believe the driver does data compression on the Mac and the deskwriter un does it when it recieve's it. From my experience with my roommate's and the documentation provided by HP you are limited by how fast the deskwriter spray's ink on >= 68020 mac, and you're limited by the Macintosh if it's a 68000 based Macintosh. From the spec's I've read on the deskjet vs. deskwriter, I believe when both are connected to a >= 68020 I think you'll find the DeskWriter faster simply due to it's data compression and faster data link, but your speed may vary. But I'd be interested in seeing "real" benchmarks comparing these printers. -- daveo@apple.com David M. O'Rourke _______________________________________________________________________________ I do not speak for Apple in *ANY* official capacity.
norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (07/17/90)
From article <3115@gmdzi.UUCP>, by strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl): > amherasimchu@amherst.bitnet writes: > [...] I have selected the DeskJet as the system default > printer, so everything goes to the DeskJet by default, and all applications > know that the default printer has Helvetica and TmsRmn in all sizes > between 4pt and 14pt. [...] ALL sizes? How about 11.75? I regularly use fractional type sizes on my Mac, even on low power word processors like MacWrite II. Just being difficult :-) Norm -- Norman Graham Oklahoma State University Internet: norman@a.cs.okstate.edu Computing and Information Sciences BangPath: 219 Mathematical Sciences Building {cbosgd,rutgers}!okstate!norman Stillwater, OK USA 74078-0599
strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) (07/21/90)
daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > But I'd be interested in seeing "real" benchmarks comparing these printers. Ok, let's try it. I have loaded your message (the one I am repying to just now) into MS Write *twice*, without the message header, i.e. starting from "strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes:". Using the default Helvetica 10pt font this fills just one DIN-A4 page. I printed it on my DeskJet+ and timed it with a stopwatch. This needs just over 35 seconds, measuring the time from the click on the OK button to the settling of the paper in the output tray. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>