Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!uwvax!oddjob!ncar!ames!elroy!mahendo!jplgodo!wlbr!scgvaxd!ashtate!dbase!drc
From: drc@dbase.UUCP (Dennis Cohen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac
Subject: Re: New LaserWriter II SC
Message-ID: <339@dbase.UUCP>
Date: 5 Apr 88 15:24:22 GMT
References: <1589@ur-tut.UUCP> <338@dbase.UUCP> <1633@ur-tut.UUCP>
Organization: Ashton Tate Development Center Glendale Cal.
Lines: 47
Keywords: Variable Print Times

In article <1633@ur-tut.UUCP>, akk2@ur-tut (Atul Kacker) writes:
> 
> 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 ?

No, it's not something that was given to us at A-T.  I got my upgrade through
my brother at UCLA.  To the best of my knowledge, it was not "announced", it
just sort of appeared to resolve printing problems with the new LaserWriters.
Incremental upgrades don't seem to get announced by MS (witness the numerous
revisions of Excel), they just show up to solve problems.

> 
> 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).
> 
That's a matter of opinion.  I happen to prefer the Times, Courier, and
Helvetica which come with the SC, but aesthetics are a personal matter.  The
bitmaps ARE clearer, why that is so I don't know, but they are -- noticeably.

> 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 ? 
> 
The SC is directed at people who need letter quality output but don't need
PostScript.  It does that very well.  I might upgrade to an NT, someday, but
I might not.  There are a lot more fonts available to me with the SC than there
are with the NT (at least in an affordable price range).  The thing I miss is
the graduated reduction/explosion of the image, not the rotation or other
special effects of PostScript.

Dennis Cohen
Ashton-Tate Macintosh Division
dBASE Mac Development Team
--------------------------
Disclaimer:  Standard disclaimer applies, opinions are my own.