🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <370@uucs1.UUCP> gaf@uucs1.UUCP () writes:
>In article <1990Dec31.183001.6201@panix.uucp> schuster@panix.uucp
>>Recently there has been some discussion (from myself and others) about
>>problems with the HP PostScript cartridge.... answers to complaints arising
>>from myself, Don Lancaster, and this net
>=== reply deleted ===
>After reading the reply from HP, I don't agree that they are stonewalling.
....more about hp, support, etc...
   
   Both HP's reply and Don Latest Computer Shopper article (which certainly
is quite old due to magazine lead time), indicate several things clearly.
1. The Cartridges DO work.
2. The language 'difficulties/bugs/non-features' are a very minor problem.

The bugs that mike & don (& others) point out are real.  We could argue about
the interpretation of them.  If the same 'bug' existed in the apple laserwriter
which has become 'the standard' by which all is measured, would they still
be 'bugs', probably not.  There are (somewhat) similiar bug that did and do
exist in the apple application.  HP's technical support has gone to some length
to indicate their analysis of the bug (s).  I disagree with HP on the duplex
copypage analysis, but sort of agree with the others. (This leaves me open
to seeing that others like don & mike may well disagree with hp on other
points...)
The problems associated with cutting a new rom set & version of the interpreter
are many.  I hope everyone can see that, and not just the cost factors either.
There is the distribution costs, version support, ....  all of it isn't cheap.
I would much rather have them support the current (and in the future a few)
versions of cartridges than (virtually) no support and hundreds of different
versions of cartridges.
I have printed quite well many many many postscript programs which I have 
written by hand.  Some of these have been complex images taking as long as
several hours to image.  I have yet to have a program of mine NOT work on the
HP cartridge.
I completely agree that the error support of the cartridge compared to a full
blown application is dissapointing, not to be expected, but still worth the
cost factors involved in a limited budget like mine.
The bottom line here, is find me a application that doesn't work on the HP 
cartridge.  MOST people that should be buying these, use a application like
wordperfect or lotus or first publisher or windows.... 99.99% of the time.
Except for the windows bug (which affects MOST postscript  devices including
apples...and certainly is NOT related to ANY cartridge bugs...), I have yet
to have a problem from ANY application using the cartridge.  That is NOT to
say that several applications did not require tweeking in their setup to
properly work due to slight hardware differences and FEATURES unique to the
HP printers.
I must disagree with both don & mike analysis that the cartridge is too slow
to be of any real considered value.  Most of my throughput is on the same
level as a apple or apple plus.  Most of the time, the difference between the
apple plus & IInt is small enough that if you took a swig of coffee you'd
not know the difference.  BUT it is not only possible but easy to write a
involved program (like don does so well) that increases nearly a log factor
the amount of time to image a page.  I sometimes feel that some people are
trying to built a realtime postscript display device from their printers,
and this is outrageous in ANY form.  I want a PRINTER to output paper that
I want/need/use to do my job and make money.  I'm not a publisher, and I'm
not turning out tons of paper.  In that analysis, the HP & cartridge is a great
cost saving, functional solution to a output problem, and applaud HP & adobe
for making it available at a reasonable price.....
al

-- 
Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University
 InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu  amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu
 Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE