Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!SRI-NIC.ARPA!KNIGHT
From: KNIGHT@SRI-NIC.ARPA (Bob Knight)
Newsgroups: mod.computers.laser-printers
Subject: Re: Tale of Xerox marketing woe...
Message-ID: <12228280683.14.KNIGHT@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 5-Aug-86 00:32:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: SRI-NIC.12228280683.14.KNIGHT
Posted: Tue Aug  5 00:32:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 7-Aug-86 02:43:37 EDT
References: <03Aug86.220734.MF0E@A.CS.CMU.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 20
Approved: laser-lovers@washington.arpa

After reading the previous message and responses to the query from the
person at Wharton, and reading this message, specifically:

	"You should also check into which Subset of Interpress each printer
	 actually supports."

...I am tempted to say that Xerox deserves the fate that they apparently
wish upon themselves:  absolute failure in the general computing market.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but is it not true that the cost of speed in
a printing engine is the mechanics, not in the electronics?  If so, then
one would assume that the electronics (except those that drive the 
mechanics) would be roughly the same cost from the bottom to top of the
line, and, therefore, should support pretty much the same page description
language.

Adobe seems to be able to do that across a wide performance range of 
engines, why can't Xerox?

Bob
-------