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!linus!decvax!decwrl!ucbvax!laser-lovers
From: laser-lovers@ucbvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.computers.laser-printers
Subject: Re: Fast PostScript engines
Message-ID: <8602231507.AA26152@phri.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 23-Feb-86 10:07:30 EST
Article-I.D.: phri.8602231507.AA26152
Posted: Sun Feb 23 10:07:30 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 05:45:08 EST
Sender: fair@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: phri!roy@seismo.CSS.GOV (Roy Smith)
Distribution: mod
Organization: Public Health Research Inst. (NY, NY)
Lines: 16
Approved: laser-lovers@washington.arpa
Summary: Who cares how fast the printer is?

>> When you talk about processing overhead over drawing time, don't you think
>> something like a hardware matrix mulitiplier like in an IRIS 2400
>> workstation would speed up the whole thing?

	What about the machine driving the printer?  We've got an Apple
LaserWriter hooked up to an 11/750.  I don't care if the printer can do 100
pages a minute; there's no way a 750 can generate troff output fast enough
to keep up with the 8 ppm LaserWriter anyway (especially when troff is at
the end of a bib|neqn|tbl pipeline).

	I know this isn't quite apropos to laser-lovers, but I think what
we really need are faster formatters, not faster printers.  From what I've
seen, most formatters (troff, tex, scribe) have their own rather primitive
model of what a printer is capable of and don't take advantage of the nifty
things PostScript can do.  They waste huge amounts of time computing the
line breaks when the printer could do it better and faster.