🚀 go-pugleaf

Hi - this is worth reposting. There is much truth IMHO.

I hope the people at the Australian EDNA project, who are thinking (ROTFL) of
buying Macintosh read this and then ask themselves if Apple really wants
the business - a help line they do not want published - outrageous !!!!!


> I'll start this thread again. Let me begin by saying that the printer
> problems are merely a symptom - there are many others.
> 
> Ask yourself why Apple never addresses these issues. This post will be
> read by many thousands of people, who will know that from the absence of
> any official reply at all from Apple, that they really have become a
> self-serving constipated bureaucracy un-interested in users.
> 
> I have now discovered, no thanks to Apple of course, and nothing in their
> various printer manuals (of course) about the 300 and the 360 that "Shane"
> thinks are the best thing since sliced bread.
> 
> The 300 has no Postscript at all, and probably no Appletalk either. It
> relies on having the host Mac do the rasterizing of the image in Quickdraw
> and sending the ready to print data to the printer. Admittedly, the
> WinWriters do pretty much the same thing, but then again they use common
> industry wide standards.
> 
> To make matters worse, Apple *probably* uses its own cutsie (and
> proprietory) Binary Communications Protocol on the serial link (it does on
> the Personal Laser Writer 310, so I assume the same for the 300).
> Basically this allows certain characters to be used as control functions
> which can be used asynchronously by the comms driver. I say probably
> because, once again the lack of info. This is the 1-800 United States SOS
> line I am referring to, just so their is doubt.
> 
> Apple Australia, believe it or not, has a help line. But they asked the
> local newspapers NOT TO PUBLISH THE PHONE NUMBER !! Apparently they are
> even more scared of real, living customers than Apple USA. At least the
> USA listens, even if they do intend to do nothing about it.
> 
> Lack of information from Apple leaves much room for doubt, fear, worry 
> and error (and this is why people do not buy Apple printers, choosing
> instead to play it safe and by a Hewlett Packard). 
> 
> Therefore connecting the 300 to a PC will require, at the minimum, serial
> cable mods *and* ensuring the clock speed(s) supported on the printer
> match the PC's serial comms.  This can be tricky to say the least.
> 
> Again, no documentation from Apple.
> 
> You could connect the 300 via a cheapo slave low end Mac that acts as a
> printer server that can accept data from the PC; problem is that you would
> need software to present the PC data as Quickdraw to the slave Mac. I have
> not heard of a postscript to quickdraw converter, drivers normally do the
> reverse.
> 
> Shane is basically correct in stating that Apple has worked hard to ensure
> incompatibility of their printers with the other 90% of the computer
> market, and that through clever design and marketing, they have snatched
> defeat from the jaws of victory.
> 
> 
> ***** The Laser 360 ******
> 
> This initially promising piece of network equipment is a bad choice for
> network administrators.
> 
> It possibly supports a fully compliant IEEE1284 bi-directional parallel
> port, but again this is not made explicit (unlike in the PC world). It
> does not come with any PC driver software as far as I know that converts
> the WinDoze GDI data into PCL.
> 
> Most importantly, it does *not* support Printer Job Language (PJL) for
> network control and management, nor SNMP.  As usual the technical info is
> missing.
> 
> ******** Stupidity & Arrogance **********
> 
> Everyone should not the **conspicuous absence** of Apple engineers or
> representatives addressing these issues on this newsgroup or that of Open
> Transport which, according to Apple is no problem, or to the extent there
> is a problem it is not Apple's problem.
> 
> It would be a simple mattter to answer this, but they don't. That is why
> Apple is in trouble.  The CHRP sounds promising but it will also fail
> because:-
> 
> A. it will be subject to supply problems (Apple will, as usual, under
> estimate demand)
> 
> B. the other CHRP will deviate ever so slightly to make it non mac
> compatible or something
> 
> C. Copland 98 will be too late.
> 
> This will be carefully timed to ensure that Apple misses out on the window
> of opportunity offered by the plug and play Web/Internet server market.
> This is in the 1990's what Desk Top Publishing (DTP) did from Apple in the
> eighties.
> 
> Apple will work hard to ensure it misses the boat on this.  I am convinced
> the management of Apple are deliberately trying to wreck the company.
> 
> ****** My motivation for this flame ****
> 
> Seriously annoyed at the pan faced, deafening silence from Apple, lack of
> published, easily accessable technical info and failure to address users
> concerns in this and other internet forums.
> 
> And can someone stop Guy Kawasaki's digital diarrhea  ? He has even
> resorted to posting the weather reports of where he is physically located.
> Banality gone mad. He divels out everything except answering the tough
> questions that users want to hear. He rationalizes this in his latest post
> by stating that by doing that he would rapidly become an ex-apple fellow.
> 
> This sounds a bit like editorial control. Perhap's Apple's "campus" leader
> Herr Spindler is unaware of academic freedom; it is certainly unaware of
> its customers. Naturally, you NEVER see Herr Spindler or his inner sanctum
> on the net (though you do with many other major company execs).  
> 
> Finally are the statistics "Revenues are up n% to $$$$, growth at % blah
> blah". This is what the communists did in the 1950's to make things sound
> great when in reality they were terrible.  It all has a ring of unreality
> to it, like feeding candy floss to drooling children who flatly refuse to
> see any faults with Apple.
> 
> Why is it that eveyone thinks Wall street is so tough on Apple for no good
> reason ?  The answer is right in front of you, and many of the points in
> this flame/article touch on the reasons.
> 
> Any way, lets have a discussion, not a flame war. Let us also stick to
> issues and not sink to name calling.  OK, now the floor is open......