Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!laser-lovers From: laser-lovers@ucbvax.UUCP Newsgroups: mod.computers.laser-printers Subject: Fast PostScript engines Message-ID: <8601280347.AA09521@phri.UUCP> Date: Mon, 27-Jan-86 22:47:21 EST Article-I.D.: phri.8601280347.AA09521 Posted: Mon Jan 27 22:47:21 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 29-Jan-86 05:53:47 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 27 Approved: laser-lovers@washington.arpa From what little I know about PostScript printers, it seems like the biggest drawback is the speed of the interpreter. I was wondering just how cost effective it would be to really soup-up the CPU in a PostScript printer, and what that souping-up would involve. For a small machine like the Apple LaserWriter the slow compute speed doesn't seem too critical. Once you get into 20+ ppm machines, however, you really need the processor speed to take advantage of that wonderful print engine. Both the LaserWriter and the Dataproducts LZN-266x have M68000's in them. (Anybody know about the QMS machines?) Why not a 68010 or 68020? Surely the performance gain would be worth the extra few hundred dollars. Am I underestimating what it would cost to put in an 020? What about hardware assist for the main processor? Wouldn't a few RasterOp chips do wonders to speed graphics up? Surely there must be a faster way to do area fill than to have a 68xxx step through a 2-D array and do bit-set operations. They build lisp machines to run lisp super-fast, why not a PostScript machine? Am I beating a dead horse with this? Do the available PostScript printers already use these tricks? If not, can anybody thing of a good reason why not? Roy Smith System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016