Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!uarthur!rpcfod From: rpcfod@uarthur.UUCP (Robert Patt-Corner) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.comm Subject: Re: Pass Through Printing (was Re: MacTerminal 3.0) Summary: Boiled or Broiled Message-ID: <26@uarthur.UUCP> Date: 2 Nov 90 18:17:41 GMT References: <11039@goofy.Apple.COM> <25@uarthur.UUCP> Lines: 58 In article , amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) writes: > Would that it were so simple. First, though, let's simplify it by dropping > all of the line-by-line printing support, so that all we have is Printer > Controller Mode. If an application sends an entire page (or document) > in one invocation of printer controller mode, life is fine (this is, in > fact, what my implementation does). However, there are a number of > applications that toggle into and out of printer controller mode, thus > giving the user such interesting effects as "one line per page," etc. > It all depends on the application. > > Having been in the position of having had to talk to irate customers, I > can assure you that telling them that their VAX software is ill-behaved > is not going to make them any happier :). And of all vendors, Apple is > liable to get the most flak for putting out something that is only partially > functional. I mean, look at this whole discussion :)... I understand what you're saying, I think. Some applications turn print controller on and off several times, without expecting a page termination. The spool print method would force page termination after each turn off. Is that it, or something else? In any event, I still would like to press my 98 per cent point, which is more of a design philosophy and marketing one than a technical one. When faced with a difficulty like this, most of us with our engineering hats on would prefer to hold off until something is perfect. I understand that, -- I catch myself doing it all the time. But in some cases -- and I think this is one of them -- a partial implementation will render a product mainly functional whereas an implementation on hold will render it mainly non-functional. Granted, the functional and nonfunctional designations are a matter of judgment -- presumably there's engineering/marketing folks out there helping to make informed judgments like that. The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that in this case, Apple's judgment to hold off for perfection was well-intentioned but mistaken. At this site, with about 6000 users, less than 20 per cent Mac's and a reasonable chance that Mac's may become standard if things go well, the absence of this feature could significantly sway the acceptance of the machine in a negative direction. It's been suggested to me offline that implementing the simplistic one page spew method of print controller is a mainly if not purely personal concern and that any solution must be more broadly based to be valid. Actually it's a more widely based concern -- cause for sad head-shaking among most of our technical staff and teeth gritting among nearly all users. I have trouble believing that this site is all that unique, but would be glad to hear evidence to the contrary. If you get broiled by 10 per cent for not implementing perfectly, and roasted by 90 per cent for not implementing, which is hotter? I'd like to respectfully attempt to convince Apple to implement a partial solution very rapidly, document the limits, and exchange the liability of a nonprinting product for the liability of a partially printing product with more to come later. Perhaps some market research could resolve the matter in an objective way.