From: greimann@ravel.udel.edu (John B Greimann)
Subject: Re: End of NeXT
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:58:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan4.203618.13573@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <C0CC35.Du8@news.udel.edu> greimann@ravel.udel.edu (John B Greimann) writes:
>>>>
>>>>Question:  can you print full page graphics on an HP LaserJet with
>>>>no memory?
>>>
>>>
>>>	Doesn't matter.  You can get a 300DPI IIIP *with* the processor,
>>>	engine and enough memory to do full page graphics for less 
>>>	than the edu cost of a NeXT laser printer.  If you want 
>>>	600, it'll be about $350 more then the NeXT, but that'll 
>>>	come down.  
>>
>>Sorry, bad comparison!  I had one of these beasts connected to my (replaced by
>>a NeXT) 486.  By the time I had bought 5 megs of memory and a paper tray for
>>it and realized that it still damn slow (on a 16 meg 486-33!!! i.e. taking
>>minutes to print what the NeXT just whips out) I junked it and bought a NeXT...
>
>
>
>	Perhaps you had it configured incorrectly.  I find printing to the
>	IIP to be reasonable (i.e. perhaps 60 to 75 seconds for full page
>	raw bitmap, much, much much less (saw, near print engine speed)
>	for text or Truetype).  Raw bitmaps slow the printer down.
My point exactly...let me see, here, I'm loading up an nice 786k gif, ah, here
it is...24-bit color mind you, click print, print panel...watch it go, boom...18
seconds later..a printout...looks real, too, not that weird garbage I'd get from
Windows...  Somehow, I never quite did get it to work properly under Windows...
it crunched for a long time, sometimes worked properly, other times just printed
 garbage.

>
>	You're quite right, for bitmap dumping, the HP can't compare
>	to the NeXT--but how often do you dump a bitmap?  If you're
>	working with text or structured graphics, it goes MUCH 
>	faster--probably as fast as the NeXT printer.

Well, when I had my PC, I did a LOT of text printing, very few bitmaps, but
I'm finding myself printing MANY more bitmaps/graphics/pretty text since getting
a NeXT...  ;')

>
>
>>All of this on NEW (last spring) technology...I seem to recall the NeXT laser
>>printer being designed in the late '80s...I believe mine says 1988 something
>>onit...400DPI, 8PPM...hmmmm, makes me wonder what HP's been up to.  Oh, and the
>> price of the HP?  It was $1050 for the printer, another $180 something for 
>>memory,and $100 for the paper tray.  The IIIP was slow, loud, and left envelope
>>s looking like they'd been through a paper-shredder.  4PPM, 300DPI (Ok, 
>>Resolution Enhancement hack helps)...still, no comparison.
>
>
>	Prices have changed.  It is not hard to find the IIIP bundled with
>	enough memory for FP 300dpi and the paper tray for <$1100 or so,
>	especially with the release of the 4.  

After my dissatisfaction with the last one, I don't think I'd buy another...
Oh, not to mention the lines the printer put into the paper, some kind of
wrinkles or something...defect or what?
>
>
>
>>Maybe you should try the LaserJet 4 instead...now how much is it with ethernet
>>, memory, and the Postscript module?  600 DPI would be nice, though!
>
>
>	We picked up our 4 with 4 extra megs (6 total--fp 600dpi) for 
>	no more than $1550.  If I want to add postscript later, I'm
>	welcome to,but as it stands Ghostscript serves.  The parallel
>	port performance is somewhat better.  The MS Windows print
>	speed is *much* better.  Easily 8 ppm.

Hot off the University price list:

PRN-C2001A          HP LASERJET 4 PRINTER                 $1290
PRN-C2021A          HP LASERJET 4M FOR MAC                $1750

I had considered the 4M for my NeXT, but decided it was just too much $ for
600 dpi.  I also considered the 550C, but it's output is gross!  Can't wait
for desktop disub, though!

>
>	No processor time sucking.  And when competing printers
>	come out, the price will drop further.  There is no competition
>	for the NeXT printer, and hence it's unbelievably high 
>	price for what is basically a box for the engine.  

It seemed to me that when my 486 got a print job, it locked up the computer
for a while, then the printer had the data, churned on it for a while, then 
printed...
>
>
>
>>>	If these companies can offer *smart* printers with memory
>>>	for about the same price as the NeXT LP, doesn't that say
>>>	something about NeXT's policy towards it's customers?
>>>	(read: price gouging.  they could sell the sucker for $400
>>>	and still be making 100% profit)
>>
>>Hey, why not design it properly from the start?  A 486 should have enough power
>>to crunch out full page graphics without the printer needing memory and a  
>>processor!  Ok, on a 286, maybe share the load, but on high end Macs and PCs,
>>come on! 
>
>
>	This is the same mindset that relies on dumb frame buffers when
>	common sense tells you that it's much, much smarter to at least
>	have a line draw and bitblt engine.  (Things like hardware zoom,
>	hardware cursor, panning, etc. etc. etc. as well).


>
>	The NeXT printer cannot match the HP's -- even the III (not the P,

No argument here...the IIIsi is a sweet printer for speed!

>	which is a 4ppm engine) -- at text only printing, which happens to
>	make up the majority of what you print.  Instead of dumping 

How about those annoying .ps and .tex files that turn up all over?

>	a full bitmap to the printer (imaged in memory by the processor
>	and then dumped to the printer at print speed) you dump the
>	small image of each letter *used* in the font, and then treat it
>	as text.  This also let's you do some *real* print buffering.
No thanks, I played the downloading fonts thing...ATM and TrueType are
annoying!  I haven't noticed text slow my machine down at all...the only
things that do are BIG bitmaps. 

>
>	My main complaint about the NeXT printer is not that it's output is
>	lousy (until recently, it was very nice--perhaps slightly better
>	than the RET output at 300dpi from HP), nor that it is terribly
>	slow (it's not, it just slows down the machine, especially on low
>	memory).  My main complaint is not against the *printer* other
>	than it's outrageous pricing.  The complaint is that NeXT went out
>	of their way to go into *yet another market* which did nothing to
>	encourage developer support
I don't remember too many cheap (under $3k 400dpi 8ppm laser printers in 1988.
Maybe they were trying to provide a decent, fast printer, seeing that 
Apple printers had postscript built in to the printer, while the NeXT already
used it for everything anyhow.

> 	Then they took advantage of the
>	virtual monopoly they created (parallel may be slow, but
>	serial is *agony*--and ethernet brings the price of competitors
>	up to make it not worthwhile) and gouged their users for
>	an obscene price.

How about SCSI???  serial is unusable for anything but dot matrix (why bother?)
Parallel isn't a bad idea...we'll see now that Sun has it.  Ethernet shouldn't
cost too much to add, and is a decent way to add networked printers.  

>
>	As far as I'm concerned, this just gives another example of 
>	NeXT's market(less) mentality.  

I agree that NeXT has a pricing problem, especially when people want MIPS
MIPS MIPS and other mindless drivel, and they do need to do some marketing,
(hello NeXT, read: try to increase market share by doing things that make
customers buy your product, such as advertising more, etc)  What I wanted to 
comment on was the comparison of a IIIP to the NeXT printer.  I just wanted to
make the point that I've used cheaper (read: lower cost) printers, and found
that I'd pay the 'extra money' to have what I perceive to be a better product 
(and so far has been.)  My work has been MUCH easier since I got a NeXT. ;')


						--Brandon 
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important info:
Voice:(302)368-4862          NeXT:(302)368-4932         Fax: (302)368-4932
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next.advocacy