From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 5 01:22:34 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C91F106564A for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:22:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B59328FC19 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 01:22:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from TEDSDSK (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) by mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with SMTP id m551MTiv022863; Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:22:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: "FreeBSD Questions" Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2008 18:23:39 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1914 In-Reply-To: <43742D27-BF20-4BDF-B73C-2AB6B28B1471@hiwaay.net> Importance: Normal X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]); Wed, 04 Jun 2008 18:22:33 -0700 (PDT) Cc: Wojciech Puchar , Chuck Robey Subject: RE: Duplex printer advice X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:22:34 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: David Kelly [mailto:dkelly@hiwaay.net] > Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 5:16 AM > To: Ted Mittelstaedt > Cc: Chuck Robey; Wojciech Puchar; FreeBSD Questions > Subject: Re: Duplex printer advice > > > > On Jun 4, 2008, at 4:46 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote: > > > What part of: > > > > "...there was no case i found postscript to print faster...You won't > > on an > > HP printer, at least not an older one..." > > > > is not understandable? > > > > Let me repeat - on most HP printers PostScript IS SLOWER BECAUSE > > HP DESIGNED IT THAT WAY. It is NOT slower because of some inherent > > issue with PostScript itself. > > > > Did you know that Ghostscript is used as the Postscript engine > > in a number of printers? > > Only in "postscript compatible" printers such as the Brother HL-5250DN. > > When Genuine Postscript is included it is ported to the printer by > Adobe. Adobe does not allow it to be crippled as conspiracy-theory Ted > claims. Nonsense. Adobe doesen't have any control over the matter. Others have already detailed the difference in speed between the HP PCL and PostScript implementations on HP Printers. I listed all of the ways that HP tries to discourage customers from buying PostScript, and encourage them to go with PCL. Most of these, such as marketing and pricing, and the amount of ram included with the base model PostScript add-on, Adobe has absolutely no control over. Adobe doesen't support their PostScript implementation in an HP Printer, HP does. And the PPDs supplied by HP are different than the ones Adobe supplies from their own website. You also forget that Microsoft went with true type rather than Adobe Type Manager, and many people have complained about the poorly implemented PostScript drivers that come standard with Windows. So not just HP but Microsoft also "cooperates/competes" with Adobe. There's more ways to tank an implementation that just failing to properly implement ie. There's many ways that tech companies have tried over the years (and succeeded at times) to sabotage their competitors. You have a very naieve view of the tech industry. > All genuine Postscript printers ship with similar CPUs, > originally Motorola 68000 family, for this very reason. > And the fact this makes it a lot easier to port has nothing to do with it......NOT! Ted