Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!zen!frank
From: frank@zen.UUCP (Frank Wales)
Newsgroups: comp.text,comp.periphs,comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: Review: HP LaserJet Series II
Message-ID: <589@zen.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Mar-87 14:18:39 EST
Article-I.D.: zen.589
Posted: Thu Mar 19 14:18:39 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Mar-87 09:00:42 EST
References: <853@maynard.BSW.COM> <588@zen.UUCP> <59@wjh12.UUCP>
Reply-To: frank@zen.UUCP (Frank Wales)
Distribution: world
Organization: Zengrange Limited, Leeds, England
Lines: 83
Keywords: LaserJet status query consistency
Summary: I disagree with HP (and I'm not alone!)
Xref: mnetor comp.text:573 comp.periphs:291 comp.sys.hp:104

In a follow-up to a review of the new LaserJet Series II,
}Julian Perry (jules@zen.UUCP) comments:
}
}      ......IT  IS NOT POSSIBLE TO FIND OUT WHICH FONTS ARE CURRENTLY
}      IN THE LASERJET MEMORY!  

In article <59@wjh12.UUCP> brent@textware.UUCP (brent byer) writes:
>A while ago, I met with two engineers from HP's LaserJet group to
>discuss LJ futures (*).  The above issue was the first I raised.  The
>response was interesting, BUT, one must keep in mind the commendable
>engineering philosophy associated with HP.  Their response (paraphrased):
>
>  "Since the LaserJet family currently supports rs-232 (& rs-422) serial
>   and Centronics (8-bit parallel) interfaces, with additional ones
>   planned for future LJ printers, we feel it is important to maintain
>   a consistent software interface for the LJ family.  Therefore,
>   since most printer interfaces (rs-232/422 is the exception) do 
>   not support transmission of data from printer TO host computer,
>   there is no way to CONSISTENTLY provide this facility."
>
>Such a response, from a lesser organization, might be construed as a
>cop-out; from HP, I accepted it (begrudgingly!).

Well, now; who is benefiting from this decision?

Software developers?  Well, yes, since their LaserJet driver software becomes
simpler to maintain.  And no, because they can't reliably discover the
state of the printer, so it becomes harder to write.

Customers?  Yes, because all LaserJets work alike.  And no, because the
feature set is constrained by whatever interface is the most brain-damaged, 
not by the capabilities of the equipment the printer is to be connected to.

HP?  Yes, because marketing a single feature set is easier than marketing
multiple sets for the "same" product.  And no, because sophisticated customers
who are aware of the potential of the equipment get frustrated by what they
perceive to be petty oversights.

Is there another solution?  Yes.  Provide a guaranteed base feature set, 
with enhancements which make best use of individual models' capabilities.

Such a solution doesn't affect any of the yesses above, but does
hit the noes.   (Ow!  :~()

And HP have already followed such a path before for other HP product
lines offering multiple communications options.  The ThinkJets, for example.  

Now, suppose one of the planned interfaces is HP-IB.  Virtually every
HP-IB peripheral supports some kind of status interrogation.  Are HP saying
that the limitations of certain interfacing standards are to cripple all
possible implementations? 

Worse, the same logic also precludes bringing out enhanced models in the
same series with additional or expanded features ("...but this new
feature makes the software interface inconsistent -- let's drop it...").

Yet the LaserJet family is growing and expanding all the time.

It certainly never used to be HP engineering philosophy to work to the
lowest standard available.  I'm sure that is still the case. [:-) -ish]

Julian's closing comment:
}    Having  said all that, the whole  LaserJet  series  (and now the ScanJet
}    too) are truly wonderful, ours never stop printing.

>Hear, hear!
>			Brent Byer
>			  Textware

There, there!					:-)

Oh, and while I'm here, Jules missed a pet peeve of mine -- it would be
*real* *nice* (yes it would) to be able to pop a message of some kind into
that nice big LCD screen to say something about what is being printed.  Why?
Well, our LaserJets are on an HP-UX system with loads of Users, and when
two send output to a LaserJet at the same time requiring manual sheet
feeding, it would be nice to know whose is which *before* the paper gets
fed in.  Just a thought...


Frank Wales	         [frank@zen.uucp<->..!mcvax!ukc!zen.co.uk!frank]
Development Engineer, part-time Systems Administrator and full-time pest 
Zengrange Limited.               [You think I'm paid to have opinions?!]