Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ig!ames!pacbell!att!pegasus!psrc
From: psrc@pegasus.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: Epson LQ500 vs. Panasonic KXP 1124
Summary: for the record . . .
Keywords: NLQ printer
Message-ID: <2867@pegasus.ATT.COM>
Date: 9 May 89 13:27:17 GMT
References: <18003@dunkshot.mips.COM> <2844@pegasus.ATT.COM> <697@mccc.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 22

In article <697@mccc.UUCP>, pjh@mccc.UUCP (Pete Holsberg) writes:
> Paul,
> When you write your printer reviews, would you be sure to include a line
> or two concerning whether the printer can handle different size pin-fed forms,
> i.e., whether or not the pin feed/tractor mechanism is adjustable for width.

Just for the record, I don't write printer reviews any more, since AT&T
now offers several models in this market segment.  (In fact, John
Dickinson asked me to work on one of the printer special issues.  I
told him I couldn't, but that he should review the 477, which went on
to become an Editor's Choice.)

I agree that form handling is an important concern, and should be
addressed by people who review (and design!) printers.

>Pete Holsberg {...!rutgers!}princeton!mccc!pjh

Paul S. R. Chisholm, AT&T Bell Laboratories
att!pegasus!psrc, psrc@pegasus.att.com, AT&T Mail !psrchisholm
The fact that I don't write printer reviews any more comes from
corporate policy; other than that, I'm not speaking for the company,
I'm just speaking my mind.  We now return to our technical discussion.