Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!steve
From: steve@violet.berkeley.edu (Steve Goldfield)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: Imagewriter II vs. LQ
Message-ID: <26497@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 19 Jul 89 23:42:51 GMT
References: <43100013@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 20

In article <43100013@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu> granston@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu writes:
#>
#>Can someone post a comparison of the Imagewriter LQ to the Imagewriter
#>II? How does the Imagewriter LQ compare to the Imagewriter II
#>in terms of both quality and speed? I have a sample of Imagewriter II
#>output, but I can't find an Imagewriter LQ to try out.
#>How much better is the LQ printing quality? I've heard rumors
#>that the LQ in it's highest quality printing mode is "virtually
#>too slow to be usable"? Can anyone confirm or deny this?

#>Lani Granston

I've only used an Imagewriter II a couple of times and haven't
experimented a lot with its quality. The LQ when it's working
right is almost as good as a LaserWriter, over 200 elements
per inch. It isn't terribly slow in highest quality mode; it's
slower for graphics than for text, but then so is any other
printer.

Steve Goldfield