Ben Myers <ben_my...@charter.net> wrote:
> It may or may not be slow as a slug with PostScript,
> like the LJ II. *I do not know. *Never encountered one.
My recollection is that the Ps "font ctg" solution on the LJ2 and
Lj3 was slow due to processing done in the module, and wait
states and/or low bandwidth to main RAM. Ps on LaserJets
wasn't really practical until the LJ4 (which I have, w/ Ps).
> I have always found PostScript printing to be both more trouble-free and
> more universally accepted than the various flavors of PCL. *Networked
> PostScript printers work flawlessly with Macs, all variants of Linux and
> Unix, and ALL versions of Windows. *For a time, Adobe Acrobat PDFs were
> especially troublesome when printed with an HP PCL driver, and Adobe had
> a whole list of hints for what to do overcome the PCL issues...
I insist on resident Ps in any new printers I buy, and when I
break that rule, I regret it. I have a cp1700d in the basement
which simply cannot be used to print large PDFs. it "forgets"
downloaded fonts about halfway through the job, rendering the
subsequent pages as gibberish. Print-as-graphics is a workaround,
but at substantially degraded quality.
Ps isn't issue-free, either. It's usually applying a different gamma
than the PCL path (which can be a benefit or a hazard). And, at
least on the LJ4, it's really slow for large raster images. It's
almost as if each pixel is being sent as a separate vector.
But if you really want to get left behind, buy printer with a
"host RIP". I also have an original PhotoSmart iPCL printer
that is now a total driver orphan.
--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:n...@ispname.tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.