Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!ames!eos!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Rumor -> Loss of Mac's 20% advantage over Windows 3.0 Message-ID: <1990Jun29.002101.4936@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 29 Jun 90 00:21:01 GMT References: <40218215MES@MSU> <42382@apple.Apple.COM> <2932@gmdzi.UUCP> <8918@goofy.Apple.COM> Sender: Aaron Wallace Organization: Academic Information Resources Lines: 72 In article <8918@goofy.Apple.COM> alexr@ucscb.ucsc.edu (Alexander M. Rosenberg) writes: >In article <2932@gmdzi.UUCP> strobl@gmdzi.UUCP (Wolfgang Strobl) writes: > >To correct you, Microsoft's marketing department says that they support >"169 printers" (I actually heard around 140.). They actually ship only a few drivers, and most of those printers were designed to be compatibile with one another.(i.e. HP LaserJet emulation). So they have a PostScript driver, a LaserJet driver, an Epson M >X-80 (and the billions of other printers that use the same escape sequences), and so forth. Probably depends on how you define driver, but, for instance, under the PostScript or HP LaserJet II drivers, many individual printer are supported separately. As each is different (resident fonts, forms, memory, limits, and so forth), each must be driven appropriately. While it is true that Apple's LaserWriter driver will support most PostScript printers, it won't necessarily take advantage of any additional features such printers may have. The Windows drivers in general will. The Windows drivers are NOT generic in the sense of one PostScript driver for all--there is one Post- Script driver, and a lot of stuff is common between the PostScript printers, but individual enhancements or limitations are supported as well. Once the PostScript driver is chosen you choose your specific printer. >Apple supplies drivers for every printer they make, and you will note that >one of those is a PostScript driver, that for the most part, can drive >every color/B&W/whatever version of PostScript printer you may have. >Third-party products are available to support parallel printers, and >printers such as the HP LaserJet compatibles. True, but the point is that if you want to go the non-Apple route, it's not as simple as going into the Control Panel, choosing, say, a Fujitsu dot-matrix printer from a list, inserting a few disks, and having it work well--without buying a separate driver or getting a printer that comes with one. From what I've heard many of such drivers are not all that great. And since Apple makes only a few printers, all of which are quite over- priced, I'd say support for them is of limited value. Which is why the DeskWriter is selling so well. I mean, OS/2 supports most of IBM printers, too--some of which are nice. This turns few heads. >Please note how easy it is >to install a printer driver on the Macintosh. I've done it on both the Mac and Windows--about the same in terms of easiness. The only advantage I'd give the Mac is that there aren't a lot of choices to be made--once the LaserWriter printer is selected, fine. Under Windows you'd have to say whose it is, how much memory you have (if appropriate) and so forth. Still, much on-line help is there, and such refinements are usually of the "suggested but not required" kind. >You will also note the >LaserWriter and LaserWriter IISC drivers support background printing. Try >doing that under Windows. I have many times... Works well with my Epson printer. Then again, background printing is nothing new in the DOS world--even the CP/M WordStar had it, as do most DOS word processors and DOS itself. Try it yourself-- fun stuff. Also note that *all* Windows printer drivers support background printing-- and have since at least Windows 2.xx. While the 2.xx spooler was a bit slow, the 3.0 one is very capable. The queue can be managed, priority set, the network queue can be fiddled with, or the entire works can be bypassed. Leaving it alone also works well. >Windows is all "we can look like them." I say, "Where's the beef?" How about in RAM usage, for one. On this 4 meg IIfx, I loaded Excel, Word, a few DAs, and a communications program (512K) and have 600K free. On a nearby 3 meg PC I loaded Excel, Word, and some other DA-type stuff and about 1.5 Meg free. In general I find that Windows is much more frugal with memory than MultiFinder--probably a remnant of the 640K barrier. (BTW, Excel and Word could be run together on a 640K PC under Windows 2.xx, albeit slowly...) Or DDE... Or virtual memory (not used in the above example, btw)... Aaron Wallace