Talk:Dot matrix printing

message: Removed the following:
:Due to dot matrix printers recently falling into disuse, Sue Harding, an Australian sound artist, has used the characteristic sounds of dot matrix printers in action in her work.
I'm struggling to see what the significance of this is to dot matrix printers.  IIRC, sound artists have used all manner of sounds, from flushing toilets to industrial jackhammers to whales mating, as part of their constructions. Has Sue Harding's work using the printer sounds become particularly well-known?  --Robert Merkel 13:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  sound artist 

message: I can't remember -- did 24-pin printers come first, or printer 'NLQ'?  I know third-party software offered NLQ-like capabilities before NLQ-fonts were built into printers.  Regardless, I do know Epson eventually added NLQ to its 9-pin printers.
:"NLQ" came first I think, but it was a rather a marketing stretch.  24-pin printers produced much better output than 9-pin printers in NLQ mode. --Robert Merkel 23:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLQ vs 24-pin 

message: I'm looking for photo software that will create a dot matrix effect with jpeg and other files 05:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: special effect

message: which one storage device is best to use(hdd, dat,zip,cd'setc) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arun.mahlan (talk • contribs) .
:Depends what you want to do with it!
:ZIP disks/drives are quite old-fashioned now; the only reason for using them is to share files with someone else who uses ZIP disks/drives.
:As for the others, they all have different areas of use; but Wikipedia talk pages are really intended for discussing article content. There are other online forums better suited to discussing your choice of storage media. All the best! Fourohfour 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  storage devices 

message: The only reference listed here is this gigantic timeline of an entire company's contributions to the technological world. 
However, I've done ctrl f (searched) the site for either impact or dot (by itself) to see where it could be used as a source and have found nothing. I realize that this is the company that pioneered the device, but, would anyone have any more useful sources to cite from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R0cko (talk • contribs) 05:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Per Epson's technical manual for the FX-80, the italic font was an actual second set of glyphs contained in the printer memory, not a processing effect. Given the extent to which later printers tried to mimic the FX-80, is the claim in the article completely false or just not of general application? — 78.105.17.36 (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "italics (text) - built-in italics capability. Printer controller created the effect through digital processing of the typeface." 

message: I am merely a reader of this page.  I have no expertise apart from having owned a few of these, including the Epson MX-80 pictured.
My question is that the last few sections of the article seem to contradict each other.  I've read them several times, and can't figure out how I'm reading it wrong.  So if correct, perhaps they should be re-written to be more clear to readers like me.
My issue is that the Disadvantages section states that Dot Matrix Printers have "comparatively lower speed" But in "The Future of DMP" it says that owners "are not easily convinced to go for printers based on other technologies because of the speed advantage of dot-matrix printers."
I can't imagine what the phrase "Because of the speed advantage" could mean.  Can it be re-written by someone who actually understands what the original author was trying to say?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev Tie Dye (talk • contribs) 00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Future of Dot Matrix Printers 

message: The term 'draft mode' appears in two places in the article, but it's never explained at all.
and
It appears to be a significant subject, but it doesn't appear anywhere else in the article. — Marvin talk 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft mode 

message: This section includes a statement about monopoly pricing of ink for inkjet printers. This statement is outside of this article's subject, and no citation backing this claim appears. It strikes me as biased, and I recommend it be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.todd.brown (talk • contribs) 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement relates to printing costs in explaining the displacement of dot matrix printers by inkjet printers, which does not seem outside the scope of the article. Rather than removing the statement, would it not be better to find an authoritative reference to document this well-known practice? For instance Freebie_marketing makes reference to this phenomenon and provides references. Pitix (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I added a ref needed tab to the disputed section rather and removed the POv tag from the whole article. Ward20 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV dispute - Use of dot matrix printers today

message: I am a bit surprised that the article equates "dot matrix printer" with "needle impact printer". A dot matrix printer is any printer that forms hardcopy using a dot matrix (a raster), using any suitable technology (which may or may not include needles and may be impact, non-impact, or even contactless),  as opposed to printers using types (daisywheel, selectric, and chain printers), vector-based drawing (some "plotter" printers by Sharp come to mind) and traditional photo-typesetting.
Common laser printers, inkjet printers, thermal printers, electroerosion printers, dye sublimation printers, etc.are all dot matrix printers (though not impact printers). Needle impact printers are just one very specific technology that falls into the dot matrix printer class - even back in the day (1980s) when needle impact printers were prevalent, this difference was commonly understood.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.12 (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I attempted to address this in DOT MATRIX PRINTERS dot matrix printers but this may have to wait.  Pi314m (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong definition of "dot matrix printer"? 

message: When i came to Canada from manchester, while in the airport i had the living daylights scared out of me when one went off nearby where i was sitting. I asked the woman about it and she said that they probibly are going to keep using dot matrix printers well into the forseeable future.  They've had that Epson there sisne at least 2008-2009.  Is this an indication of the future of dot matrix printing in your oppinions? Or will Manchester airport be the odd one out?
Eric Ramus  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Manchester airport

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dot matrix printers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: What the purpose of Dot matrix printer? Isn't this page describe the same concept? Tucvbif (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The two articles could certainly be merged. The value in keeping them separate would be if there is a need for an article that focuses more on specific models of printer rather than the general technology. That might justify retaining them as separate articles.--Srleffler (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

text: *Support merge Joyous! | Talk 11:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

text: *Support merge The subjects are highly related and there is no indication in the articles that there is dot matrix printing that isn't done by a printer. To Srleffler's point on models, the section on models seems excessive to the overall subject, but it can be considered after a merger; there may be worth in spinning them out to a List of dot matrix printers that can discuss these as, for instance, IBM 5103's main coverage is its section in dot matrix printer. —Ost (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

text: *Support TocMan (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Reverted content that was WP:PROMOTION and WP:CITE.  While Tally may have been a producer of dot matrix printers, the inclusion, with no citation of noteworthiness appears promotional.  If an editor wants to add it back, go for it, so long as Tally can be cited as a significant contributor to early dot-matrix tech as was Centronics, Epson, OKI, etc.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted edits  15:05, 26 January 2023‎ Amin1989