Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!olivea!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!sics.se!fuug!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!wirzeniu
From: wirzeniu@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Lars Wirzenius)
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: documentation printing
Message-ID: <1991Jun12.065151.27837@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 12 Jun 91 06:51:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: klaava.1991Jun12.065151.27837
References: <1991Jun11.105816.31353@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 19

In article <1991Jun11.105816.31353@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>Is there a good reason for using copy-to-prn rather than 'print'?

It's worse than that: Neither might work, as the printer may be
connected to another port than prn:, it might not like the document as
provided (e.g., a Postscript printer would need a translation from ASCII
to Postscript first), and the paper might be formatted for a different
size of paper (this has hit me almost every time, American and Finnish
paper sizes seem to differ, Finnish is longer).

This alone would not be that much of a problem, since the document
printing batch file could say that it requires such and such a printer
and such and such a paper.  If you have something else, then just
reformat the documentation and print it by hand, right? Wrong.  More
often than not, the only form of documentation is the pre-formatted file
filled with unknown control code sequences.

-- 
Lars Wirzenius     wirzeniu@cc.helsinki.fi