On 8 Sep 2011 at 21:03, Tony Duell wrote:
I never said you should run one as your only (or
main) printer :-).
It's probaby uneconomical to run a PDP8 as your only computer system,
but plenty of u run PDP8s from time to time.
Space is money. And lots of unused bulky stuff makes me uneasy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why? How would not having the printe sitting in the corner of the
workshop (or whatever) increase your income?
That/'s
why, incidentally, in a couple of days time I am demonstating
a printer that's almost 40 years old, taking it apart to show the
internals, nnd describing the intricacies of the control system (it's
beautiful, and to think the ROM is only 32 bytes long.
What, you've found a 1403?
Alas not. This is a much smaller printer from another manufacturer. I
suppsoe it's techncially a line printer in that the print head is the
full width of the pwper and doens't move, but it doesn't produce
characters in one go either.
I case you're puizzled, it's an HP9866A thermal printer. The printhead
has a row of 400 elements across the paper. It outputs the dot patterns
for one fow of dots in all the characters of the line, the nmoves the
paper up by one dot-line, then does the next row of dots, and so on.
Actually, it's more complciated than that. To save on printhead
connections and PSU loading, it acutally outputs the dots for one romw of
characters 0,4,8,12,etc then the ons for 1,5,9,13, etc, then 2,6,10,14,..
and finally 3,7,11,15,... before moving the paper. The control system is
a 32-state state machine with internactions between the possible next
states and the condition to select between them. It's quite elegant.
I've not used either, but I can think of one
possible reason to keep
the older unit going -- because it's more relaible.
I'm not convinced of that--it's only 300 DPI, and requires special
(expensive) supplies and is incredibly messy to refill (the toner is
None of that tells me anything about the reliability...
loose in a bottle and is dumped into a compartment
when refilling.
Gloves are included--and required). Better than the old wet-process
printers, but not something I care to fool with.
You knwo,m I'd actually quite like a Canon LBP10 or similar wet laser
printer. But not enough to pay shipping on one :-)
-tony