Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!ur-tut!akk2
From: akk2@ur-tut (Atul Kacker)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: New LaserWriter II SC
Message-ID: <1633@ur-tut.UUCP>
Date: 4 Apr 88 18:15:25 GMT
References: <1589@ur-tut.UUCP> <338@dbase.UUCP>
Reply-To: akk2@tut.cc.rochester.edu.UUCP (Atul Kacker)
Organization: Univ. of Rochester Computing Center
Lines: 52
Keywords: Variable Print Times

In article <338@dbase.UUCP> drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen) writes:
>In article <1589@ur-tut.UUCP>, giaccone@ur-tut (Tony Giaccone) writes:
>
>> The second problem is with a Microsoft Word (3.0)  document. 
>I had this same difficulty with Word until I got the Word 3.02, which was
>an upgrade to fix compatibility problems with the new LaserWriters.  

I don't know about you guys, but I think this is the first I have heard
about version 3.02 of Word (or is it something that's available as a pre-
release to Ashton-Tate).  When was this upgrade announced ?  And how did
you get your upgrade ?

>> Has anyone else out there used the SC, have you noticed these or any other 
>> problems with the printer? What's going on here. Would someone from Apple
>> care to comment?
>I have an SC (as stated above) and have found few problems with it.  
>In general, it is as fast as (or faster than) the
>LaserWriter IINTX at the office and I like the print quality better for things
>with bitmaps in them. 

I don't think that I can agree with Dennis on the print quality of the II SC.
Bitmaps, will probably look the same on both the NTX and the SC, but what
really matters is the text.  The text fonts look ridiculous on the SC.  They
are squat with thick outlines and I can't imagine ANYONE liking the appearance
of those fonts over the LW+ or NTX fonts.  By reducing the font 4X and then 
printing, you lose everything that the font designers had in mind when they
designed that font (in terms of style and appearance).

I have seen output from the GCC Personal LaserPrinter and their output was
MUCH better. (I believe they use Bitstream outline fonts).  The standard
answer I have seen on AppleLink and in Apple brochures is that people
can always upgrade to a NT.  Was the SC designed such that people would
take one look at the output quality and decide they couldn't live without
an upgrade ?  Or did Apple in their haste to get something to the market
(or in an efort to quieten people who complained of the lack of decently
priced output devices) come up with such a beast ? 

I know one can get an extension cable for the SC, but why is the default
cable supplied with it only 18" ?  18" barely leaves you with enough room
to slip two fingers to get to the programmer's switch.

The Apple LaserWriter was what set the Mac apart from other machines in 
terms of output quality.  The LaserWriter SC is a step in the wrong
direction.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atul Kacker  |     Internet: akk2@tut.cc.rochester.edu
             |     UUCP: {ames,cmcl2,decvax,rutgers}!rochester!ur-tut!akk2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------