Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!pequod.cso.uiuc.edu!dorner From: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm Subject: Re: Pass Through Printing (was Re: MacTerminal 3.0) Message-ID: <1990Nov2.193400.21228@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> Date: 2 Nov 90 19:34:00 GMT References: <11039@goofy.Apple.COM> <1990Oct31.012421.12492@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <-4x2g2.388@smurf.sub.org> Sender: news@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (News) Reply-To: dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Lines: 21 >Would it be that much harder to emulate a FX80? >Anything wrong with this idea? Five come to my mind: 1) The program just got bigger. Bigger is buggier. 2) You now need a different driver ON THE MAC for every device you intend to attach to the "terminal". These drivers may be hard to come by (suppose you're driving a plotter, for example). 3) If you have a system that works via pass-through, why put more things in the way? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 4) Users have an extra step to go through (finding, selecting, and installing the right driver) to use software that JUST WORKS with a real terminal. Very bad politics. 5) Speed, especially on 68000 macs. If the mac can only update a 24x80 72 dpi screen at 9600 baud with difficulty, imagine an 8.5x11 inch 150 dpi printer page. Not fun. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: uunet!uiucuxc!uiuc.edu!s-dorner