Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 10:36:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Jim Freeze <jim@freeze.org> To: Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm@toybox.placo.com> Cc: Mike Porter <mike.porter@xrxgsn.com>, John Merryweather Cooper <jmcoopr@webmail.bmi.net>, Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org>, <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: What is the magical incantation necessary to print to /dev/ulpt0 Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0108131021510.20427-100000@www.stelesys.com> In-Reply-To: <003401c123c1$6a0bc0e0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > >On Sun, 12 Aug 2001, Mike Porter wrote: > >> products. I *am* still curious as to the real cost/performance benefit of > >> using the host rather than a hardware renderer; it would seem to me that > >> there is more data to transfer, and over a relatively slow interface like > >> the parallel port, it would seem to me to be terribly expensive from a > >> time/CPU time perspective. Of course, my logic could be faulty, or my > > > >Yes, there is more data to transfer, but USB has helped solve this > >problem. But regardless of speed, the consumer looks only at one thing. > >$$$. > > This is only true for retail consumers that are stupid. Most businesses > look at reliability first because they understand that saving a few hundred > bucks in capital expenditures is piss-poor economy if it increases your > service and maintainence costs by thousands over the life of the printer. You are right. Businesses look at reliabilty first. Consumers look at price first. Lexmark inkjet printers are targeted toward cosumers. This may look foolish (stupid as you say) to a business, but nevertheless, it is a reality. Else why else would lowering the cost per page meet with lower sales, even if the price is only slightly more. When your competitor has kept the same price or even lowered their prices, your $.04 saving per page doesn't translate into more consumer sales. In fact, sometimes it is cheaper (rebates, sales, etc) to buy a new printer than to buy a new set of printheads. (I have sat in many a meeting where adding a single button to increase usability was debated becase it would add $.05 to the cost of the printer.) > > >It costs money to put hardware in the printer. > >And when all (well, from marketing's perspective) your customers already > >have a printer running windows, then why not use the computer and make the > >printer cheaper. > > Because if you push the printer intelligence from the printer into the > driver, then you decrease reliability because you can have interactions on > the host between other software and the driver. Yes in general, but not really a factor for printers. > >In the all the current Zxx series, the host driver > >performs all the half-toning and shingling of the data. The printers > >actually have hardware 'rotater' code that formats the data for the > >printhead. In the upcoming release, this 'rotation' will be done in the > >host computer. This saves alot of chip real estate since the new printer > >has larger more complicated printheads. > > > > This is all great in theory but a nightmare in execution because it just > encourages hardware companies like HP to rush a hardware design out the door > then spend the next YEAR buggering around with the device driver while all of > the customers are in effect beta testers. Well, I don't think a 3Billion dollar industry is theory. Some would call this flexibility. > If the customer has any brains they will buy the printer that has the > intelligence in the printer - because then if there is a problem it's The businesess customer (as you put it, 'has brains') will but the consumer will not. That is why lexmark has two divisions, a business printer and a consumer division. In fact they sell an inkjet for businesses that supports postscript, but it is the biggest failure I have ever seen. I think they have sold 100 printers. > obvious, and easily provable, and they have warranty recourse. If, however, > the customer has mush for brains then they buy the crap printer that > has the fancy device driver - and if there's a problem then they just > sit in the middle of a finger-pointing session between the printer > manufacturer and the manufacturer of the computer, while each blame the > other's crappy hardware. And you ought to note the software license that HP This has been known to happen. Typically with USB ports, but as more reliable chipsets hit the market, it is becoming less of an issue. > slaps on their printer device driver - the driver software has NO warranty in > it whatsover. No wonder companies like HP are doing this - because in effect > they are removing the most trouble-prone part of the printer - the imaging > software -from consumer warranty protection. The imaging software is not the most trouble-prone part of a printer. Jim ========================================================= Jim Freeze jim@freeze.org --------------------------------------------------------- No comment at this time. http://www.freeze.org ========================================================= To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.32.0108131021510.20427-100000>