Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!xanth!nic.MR.NET!shamash!com50!pwcs!stag!dynasoft!john
From: dynasoft!john@stag.UUCP (John Stanley)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: 2-pass DEGAS printout program?
Message-ID: <0401891955400695@dynasoft.UUCP>
Date: 2 May 89 00:55:40 GMT
Reply-To: dynasoft!john@stag.UUCP (John Stanley)
Organization: DynaSoft Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
Lines: 48
X-Member-Of: STdNET (ST Developer's Network)

[Bob_BobR_Retelle@cup.portal.com writes...]

> Actually, DENSITY.PRG allows you to select which pin is used to make the
> printout, and the Help File instructs you to rotate the pin used for each
> printout done...   assuming you did 8 pictures and selected a different pin
> each time, each pin would end up doing the same amount of work as if all 8
> were used..

  All this really doesn't matter...  Using a single pin to print
something as large as a screen dump means that that single pin is going
to have to do lots and lots of work.  It will heat up (while the rest of
the pins won't) which will cause heat stress which will further weaken
the print head.

  If it used all the pins, the print head would warm up fairly evenly,
and when it was done, each would have only done 1/8th the work and now be
given a chance to cool off to be ready for the next time.  The typical
print head isn't designed to be able to hit the paper every dot or every
other dot for long periods of time.  They hit maybe 5-10 dots and then
they get 5-10 dots to rest before they get to the next character.  They
really aren't designed to be used for screen dumps.

> Of course, it's up to the user to remember to change pins, and the real
> problem would arise when you only wanted to make one printout and didn't
> bother to change pins before doing it..

  To quote a message I reciently saw in comp.sys.ibm.pc, this is a "bogus
design".  If something's a "good idea", simple, and critical to using the
program without damaging parts of the system, the program should do this
for you.

> On the other hand, the program works well, and is available now...

  Works "well" in whose definition?  I don't consider a program that has
the potential to prematurely age my printer and takes 5+ times as long to
print a screen than a program that was written properly (my definition:
used all 8 or 9 pins on the printer...) as "working well".

  So what if it's "available now"?  So are cigarettes, but I don't use
them either (for similar reasons)...  ;^)

> BobR

	... John STanley

---
John Stanley <dynasoft!john@stag.UUCP>
Software Consultant / Dynasoft Systems