From: marcel@opal.cs.tu-berlin.de (Marcel Weiher)
Subject: Re: End of NeXT
Organization: Techn. University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 11:11:35 GMT

dillon@overload.Berkeley.CA.US (Matthew Dillon) writes:

>    postscript despite the fact that their own laser printer stuffs rasters
>    and despite the fact that raster conversion is simple (that is, support
>    for non-postscript printers must be hacked in rather then go through
>    NeXT's .PPD files).  Consider the fact that it is certainly possible to

PPDs only describe PostScript printers.  Also, 3.0 supports some Dot matrix
printers.  Why not more?  I'd hazard the guess that it's because there exists
a third party solution, called Dots.  (Actually, I've one in the works myself,
better of course,  but have more pressing projects.)

>    run a standard parallel port at megabyte/sec speeds for 'conforming
>    printers', i.e. a NeXT-specific printer, requiring nothing more then a
>    shorter cable, and still be able to run the SAME port at standard
>    speeds for standard parallel printers. NeXT, going with a ludicrous
>    custom 'printer' port and then trying to explain it away as being
>    better on technical grounds is idiotic. The current scheme forces

Would you care to back this statement up with facts?  I have heard of NO
printer engine being driven by a standard parallel port.  All the 
laser printers with a parallel port need onboard memory + controller,
enough for a full page if it's full page graphics.

>    non-NeXT printers to use the serial port since no parallel port is
>    available.	This results in potentially poor performance for non-NeXT
>    printers the fault of which is the NeXT, not the printer.

Yes, I would like to have a parallel port, too.  But do remember that
Sun just added one recently (I don't know about the other workstations)
and Macs still don't have them.

>    Frankly, I don't give a damn about NeXT's laser printer.
>    price/performance arguments aside, there is simply nothing special
>    about it that I can see that isn't possible with other printers using a
>    more standard interface.  All this crap about it being 'just an engine'
>    is just that...crap.  There is no reason to require one to spout

That's a strong statement,and as far as I know, "just crap".  The NLP is
"just an engine", the reason you have to have a custom interface is 
because there is NO memory on board, therefore you have to feed the
laser engine with an absolutely CONSTANT DATA RATE.  Just high speeds
are not enough.  By the way, the interface is not parallel.

Question:  can you print full page graphics on an HP LaserJet with
no memory?

>    postscript to a printer when one can spout rasters quickly enough and
>    that just about removes the processing requirements on the printer
>    side... And, gee, guess what?  HP's standard printer protocols do just
>    that... the processing engine in an HP500-C (non-postscript) is no more
>    complex then the processing engine in NeXT's laser printer.  Less so,

Yes?  Now the HP-500 I know can print characters, decompress bitmaps and do
all sorts of stuff.  What can the "processing engine" in my NeXT laser printer
do?  Maybe your HP-500 is different from the ones we have in Germany...

Also the data rates and other requirements aren't really comparable for a Laser
and an ink jet printer.  Remember the thing about apples and oranges?

>    in fact.  Not only that, but you lock yourself into NeXT's technology
>    and must hope that it stays up with the wider world which, as we have
>    seen, it does not.

Doesn't?  

Marcel