🚀 go-pugleaf

! I for one am quite glad that everyone and their cousing isn't writing
! printer drivers.  A recent MacWeek editorial made the point that what does
! the user do if Claris' software won't print to a Xereox printer using Cricket's
! driver and Apple's operating system?  Who ya gonna call?
! Printer drivers are the biggest hassle in the MS-DOS world.  Each application
! comes on 6 disks, one for the program and 5 to support every god-awful printer
! ever built.  And you can be damn sure that when Epson upgrades their printers
! that you will need new and improved drivers to take advantage of their featuers.

! My response: LET MS-DOS KEEP THE TROUBLE

! Of course, device independent printing is the ideal, as I am sure Apple is 
! aware and working on.  But until that day, I'll stick with Apple printers
! and Apple drivers.

Your sentiment is appreciated.  However, the situation is a bit different
in the Macintosh case: in particular, all (properly-written) Mac applications
open the printer interface, then "draw" each page using Quickdraw calls.  The
printer driver is responsible for capturing the Quickdraw (the infamous
bottlenecks) and turning them into whatever is needed for the printer.  Thus
Quickdraw is the printer-and-application-independent medium of exchange.

So the MacWeek concerns, and yours, are ill-founded.  If it prints on an
ImageWriter with Apple's driver, it ought to print on XYZ's printer with
PDQ's driver.  If it doesn't, call PDQ and tell 'em to get it right (or get
XYZ to fix it).

The only exception I know of is that some applications feed "PostScript
comments" through the Quickdraw interface when they "know" there's a PostScript
printer on the other side.  Again, if it prints on an Adobe-supported
LaserWriter, it ought to run on any putative clones.

The simple fact is that printer drivers are a black art, a jealously-guarded
secret (even WITHIN Apple, from the rumors I've heard).  There's no excuse
for keeping this information under wraps for over four years.

But then, there is certainly no pressure within Apple to actually document
and publish the printer driver interface: why on earth would they want to
make it easy to break their near-monopoly on Mac printers?  Recognize that
Apple are (rightly) interested in supporting only those developers who are
going to facilitate sales of APPLE's products.  They get no bucks, nor warm
fuzzies, from sales of other devices, so you have to somehow convince them
that Calcomp support is a gating factor on some number of Mac sales.  Do that,
and you'll get action.

=Ned Horvath=