9 Apr
2005
9 Apr
'05
7:19 p.m.
> The functional difference is that when I print
complex Postscript
> documents to the PCL-only printer, it is much *FASTER*. The
> computer has a lot more computons available for rendering than the
> Postscript printer does.
I have a similar setup at home, but I still send PS to
my 4ML
because, in side-by-side comparisons, the computer-rendered output is
slightly worse than the 4ML's output. The 4ML's curved lines seem
anti-aliased or something; they're smoother. Halftoning looks a bit
better too. But that's just my opinion. Both printers are 300 DPI
(the 4ML has "resolution-enhancing technology", not sure if that is
marketing-speak or actual features though; the PCL printer does not).
Probably actual features, if you can see the difference. I suspect
that the smoother curves and better halftones are exactly what the
"resolution-enhancing technology" does. (I'm not sure in what sense
it's still 300dpi; perhaps if I knew the guts of the thing I'd be able
to say something more definitive.)
Back in 1988, when sending a semi-complex page took
tens of minutes
to spool, PS was magic for me -- computer control was returned in
less than half a minute and I could keep working while this complex
page was formed on the printer.
I still remember the time, soon after we (at the university lab I
worked for at the time) got our first LaserWriter, when I wrote PS code
to print a plot where a point (X,Y) was white or black according as X
and Y were relatively prime or not. (Experimenting with an unusual
data procedure to the image operator.) I printed a few sheets at low
and medium resolutions (eg, 100 pixels each way on an 8" square), then
cranked it up to full 2400x2400 dots (300dpi * 8"). Sending the file
took moments (9600 baud serial line) - but the printer just sat there.
I had to leave it overnight. :-)
/~\ The ASCII der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse at rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B