Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!husc6!lloyd!kent
From: kent@lloyd.camex.uucp (Kent Borg)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: How did they make the printer so cheap?
Message-ID: <231@lloyd.camex.uucp>
Date: 21 Oct 88 14:26:20 GMT
References: <5807@zodiac.UUCP> <24895@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <533@gt-eedsp.UUCP> <41087@linus.UUCP> <73489@sun.uucp> <7049@ut-emx.UUCP> <25141@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: kent@lloyd.UUCP (Kent Borg)
Organization: Camex, Inc., Boston, Mass USA
Lines: 26

In article <25141@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes:
...
>             The imager can image much faster than this printer can
>print (8ppm), so the bottleneck is in the printer.
...
>-=-
>Zippy sez,								--Bob
>Didn't I buy a 1951 Packard from you last March in Cairo?

Not so fast!  

I have seen unimpressive pages on which a LaserWriter cranks well over
an hour to output.  For the NeXT machine to output a 1
LaserWriter-hour page at 8 pages a minute at the same 300 dpi
resolution (never mind 400 dpi) it would have to interpret PostScript
more than 28000 times as fast does a LaserWriter.

Certainly for simple pages the NeXT laser printer might be the
bottleneck, but let's not pretend there is no limit to Jobs' magical
powers.  Someone can always throw a more complicated PostScript
program at his NeXT cube.  There is no way he can guarantee how fast
it will be run.

Kent Borg
kent@lloyd.uucp
or
hscfvax!lloyd!kent