Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!shelby!portia.stanford.edu!jessica.stanford.edu!aaron From: aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc Subject: Re: Windows/Mac flame war fuel Message-ID: <1990Jul6.174126.18953@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 6 Jul 90 17:41:26 GMT References: <8974@goofy.Apple.COM> <2988@gmdzi.UUCP> <42650@apple.Apple.COM> <3042@gmdzi.UUCP> <42681@apple.Apple.COM> Sender: Aaron Wallace Organization: Academic Information Resources Lines: 116 In article <42681@apple.Apple.COM> daveo@Apple.COM (David M. O'Rourke) writes: > A tractor feed being installed/not-installed is unimportant. Yes it is--the driver may have to pause after each page to let the user put in a new sheet. With a tractor this isn't necessary. True, some printers have a page-pause feature, but for thise that don't... >Most of >of the print driver's are written for a Specific printer, or query the >printer as to it's font list. But you are thinking DOS only. Most of >the ink jet printers for the mac, including the Deskwriter, store the font's >on the Macintosh and not the printer. In addition the Macintosh rarely >sends just the character to the printer. Rather it typically sends a bitmap >to the printer that happens to look like text. So the only relivant info >for a particular printer type is it's maximum resolution, dpi. And then >the Macintosh creates a bit map at the resolution and sends the graphics to >the printer. I thought the Mac sent PostScript to the LaserWriters, using a bitmap only if there wasn't a matching font on the printer... I know, System 7 will do it differently, and so will Windows 3.1 and OS/2 2.0... Still, I'm not convinced that configuration can always be handled automatically, or should be. If a font cartridge is in the printer it should be used. And if there is no was for the printer to communicate its contents, configuration is necessary. [ stuff on sereal connections deleted ] > Windows is build on top of DOS, dos is a character based OS. It has no >standard graphic routines, and no standard graphics model. UNIX is a character based OS. UNIX has no standard graphics routines. Therefore the NeXT and most workstations are incapable graphics machines? >NOTE: A graphics >model goes beyond simple color specification and point ploting, it includes >standard font handleling, a graphics plane for ploting in, and OS supported >graphics functions for ovals, squares, shading and so forth. The way to think of DOS and Windows is: DOS is the file system and Windows is the OS. Windows supports all the above and more. >The PC is >a text based OS because in has no *standard* graphics model that cover's even >half of what QuickDraw is capabile of. DOS can't. Windows can. >And since MS Windows is based on DOS >there are still left-overs of a character based model in the printing and >screen handling routines that you won't get away from until you choose a new >OS for your base. Windows doesn't print through DOS. Windows doesn't access the screen through DOS. No DOS limitations here. What left-overs did you have in mind, other than those associated with the DOS file system which we all know about? > The statement is only meaningless to people who can't think beyond their >favorite machine, and QuickDraw while it is good, doesn't meet a lot of the >criteria for a complete graphics model, but it does a better job than MS >Windows or DOS. > >>Anyway. The problem Windows has (and the Mac OS has not) is that it >>has to support a much broader range of printers, from the cheap >>9-needle-printer to the big Postscript RIP. In my opinion this support >>is an advantage. > > It may be an advantage, but that means that all software to be fully >compatible has to be designed to a lower common demoninater than on the Mac. Not at all--it just means that the program can't make wild assumptions about what it's printing to. In general most Windows calls assume that the devices are far more capable than they really are; for example Windows has calls for quite complex sound that isn't possible on the PC speaker. On the other hand, a driver which assumes too much must be written for a certain common denominator. >The Macintosh requires a high capability printer than a DOS machine. This >isn't a bad thing. It means that Macintosh Software can assume a highly >level of functionallity in their output devices, and people won't accept >a lower quality standard. The Macintosh can support just as many printers >as the PC, if all of those printers where up to a Macintosh standard, but most >of the cheap PC printers will not do an adequite job of printing compared to >other Macintosh printers, and therefore can't compete. Most PC dot matrix printers I've seen do much better than the imagewriter, and most lasers have about the same output (except the LaserJet III, which is much better). Am I missing something? >>Just one more question. How do you print into a file, if the >>printer is not physically available? It cannot be queried in this case. >>Don't tell me that the printer driver just stores the abstract >>graphics operations into a file instead of sending it to the printer. >>How can it know the specifics of the printer, if it is not available, >>and if there is no configuration at all? > > You don't. The Macintosh print arch. requires the printer to be able to >communicate back to the computer. Not a limitation, it's a requirement that >allows the Mac to enjoy a higher level of basic printer functionality than >an equivilant DOS machine. If you want a spooler or print server your software >must behave like the printer it's emulating, there is no batch dump mode >where the Mac just assumes the printer is there and doesn't pay any attention. Is this why background printing on the Mac is limited to laser printers, which need it least? > Why should I have to tell it anything about the printer. That's the drivers >job, not the users. >-- >daveo@apple.com David M. O'Rourke Aaron Wallace