Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!cernvax!chx400!ugun2b!ugsc2a!fisher
From: fisher@sc2a.unige.ch
Newsgroups: comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d
Subject: Re: documentation printing
Message-ID: <1991Jun13.090803.463@sc2a.unige.ch>
Date: 13 Jun 91 07:08:02 GMT
References: <1991Jun11.105816.31353@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
Organization: University of Geneva, Switzerland
Lines: 23

In article <1991Jun11.105816.31353@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
> Shareware and PD programs often contain a file 'printdoc.bat' or
> some such, which prints out the documentation file.

Yes, and it's often formatted for the local printer of the sender, using
for example some native-american "standard" paper size instead of our local
native-european "standard" A4... :-)

> Is there a good reason for using copy-to-prn rather than 'print'?
> At best it's an annoyance; at worst, it gives a bad first impression
> (which is the sort of thing that makes users less inclined to pay a 
> shareware registration fee...)

DOS' "print" is a TSR.  Let's say I connect to some main-frame or Unix system
to read the News, download an archive and shell to DOS to have a look at it.
If I then execute a batch file loading the TSR "print", it's nothing but
trouble!  The memory portion will not be released when you exit COMMAND...

How's that for a first bad impression?  When the system hangs, you'll think
the package is really broken, or that it carries a virus.  A simple DOS
message stating that the printer is not reachable is not nearly as bad.

Markus G. Fischer