On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 11:58:04 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>
> Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

[windows 7 not knowing that printer is actually on line.]

> > I have the same problem with my Windows 7 laptop and Brother HL-
> > L2380DW printer via wireless. I stumbled on a solution of resetting
> > the print spooler, and that works every time (until the next time I
> > shut down or restart or hibernate).
> >
> > I created the following batch file, then set its properties to run
> > elevated:
> >
> > net stop Spooler
> > net start Spooler
> > @pause
> >
> > I created a shortcut to the batch file, with shortcut key
> > Ctrl+Shift+Alt+P for print.
>
> Ooh. That looks useful. Most of the time if I run the troubleshooter it
> fixes it, but not always. Do you know if your batch file works on win10?

I don't know, sorry. But almost everything that works in Windows 7
also works in Windows 10, so I'd certainly think it's worth a try.
And MUCH faster than running troubleshooter.

Let us know what you find out!

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
https://OakRoadSystems.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:40:12, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Any decent printer should understand Postscript
>>
>I don't know of any printer that handles PostScript files other than
>PostScript printers. OTOH. since valid PostScript files can be written
>in ASCII (but gets complicated when images are involved), PostScript
>printers are as universal as it gets because they are independent of
>the OS.
>
>The "downside" is that they are not aimed at casual users. My PS
>printers and the apps that generate valid PS cost well over $100k US.
>
Agreed. They tend to be aimed at the sort of corporate space that can
handle floor-standing printers (even if the PS-compatible ones aren't
_actually_ floor-standing).

I was thinking more the budget end - where the common denominator is a
CMYK raster.

I think the analogy someone came up with, of the keyboard, is a good
one; if you get one of the keyboards with multimedia keys,
colour-changing LEDs, and so on, and plug it into any old PC - the fancy
extras won't work, but it'll still function as a keyboard. The same
applies to a gaming mouse, I think.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Actors are fairly modest...A lot of us have quite a lot to be modest about. -
Simon Greenall (voice of Aleksandr the "Simples!" Meerkat), RT 11-17 Dec 2010

On 5/31/21 7:43 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> I've just read through (in the '10 'group) yet another printer driver
> thread.
>
> Why is there not, in 2021, a universal printer driver? Surely, by now,
> the basics of printing are established; I haven't heard of a new
> innovation in printing that made me think "gee, that's clever" for
> years, possibly over a decade. Printing, basically, is the creation of a
> matrix of dots in black and colours. So surely it ought to be possible,
> by now, to have come up with something all printers (other than
> daisywheel/golfball ones) could be fed with and work? OK, those with
> extra features, like more than black-plus-three-colours or variable spot
> sizes, maybe need something different, but even those ought to be able
> to work with some standard output, just not use their extra features.
> Certainly, the majority of models don't _have_ such features (or in the
> case of the spot size, do the conversion internally).
>
> Same for scanners; RGB rasterisation of data, and maybe control of
> resolution and scan area to speed things up/give a preview mode.
>
> I know the usual argument - there's no incentive for manufacturers to
> agree, and in fact disincentive, to ensure that working hardware keeps
> going obsolete - but surely the first one to say "works straight away
> with the standard driver, no need to hunt for one" will get a lot of
> buyers.
>
> Back in the days of "dot matrix" (I've always thought an odd name - all
> but daisywheel/golfball use a matrix of dots), there was a de facto such
> standard - EPSON; other makers, if they knew what was good for them, had
> a switch inside their printer that made it behave like an EPSON, as
> everything (that was in DOS days when each software! had its own printer
> drivers) had an EPSON driver.

I personally wish they'd stick with PS (Post Script) or PCL
(Printer Command Language). There is no need whatsoever
for all this proprietary bull s***.

Snowshed. wrote:
> On 6/1/21 6:53 PM, T wrote:
>> I personally wish they'd stick with PS (Post Script) or PCL
>> (Printer Command Language). There is no need whatsoever
>> for all this proprietary bull s***.
>
> I'm not a programmer, but if a printer manufacturer adds a new feature
> to their printer(s), is there a guarantee that PS or PCL can accommodate
> the new feature?

That could be why PCL5 was followed by PCL6.
Makes you wonder what happened to PCL1,2,3,4.

To some extent, that would depend on whether
there is anything new under the sun, in the way
of a "ppd" file.

At a guess, a "new feature" works, if their software
is installed, while a "generic attempt" by Microsoft,
would make the "just a printer" part work.

Consider my webcam as an example. If will only do
960*X when controlled by UVC Class driver (generic).
It will do 1600x1200 if the Logitech driver is loaded.

Paul

On 6/1/21 6:39 PM, Paul wrote:
> Snowshed. wrote:
>> On 6/1/21 6:53 PM, T wrote:
>>> I personally wish they'd stick with PS (Post Script) or PCL
>>> (Printer Command Language).  There is no need whatsoever
>>> for all this proprietary bull s***.
>>
>> I'm not a programmer, but if a printer manufacturer adds a new feature
>> to their printer(s), is there a guarantee that PS or PCL can
>> accommodate the new feature?
>
> That could be why PCL5 was followed by PCL6.
> Makes you wonder what happened to PCL1,2,3,4.
>
> To some extent, that would depend on whether
> there is anything new under the sun, in the way
> of a "ppd" file.
>
> At a guess, a "new feature" works, if their software
> is installed, while a "generic attempt" by Microsoft,
> would make the "just a printer" part work.
>
> Consider my webcam as an example. If will only do
> 960*X when controlled by UVC Class driver (generic).
> It will do 1600x1200 if the Logitech driver is loaded.
>
>    Paul

I have solved a lot of printing issues by reverting
to pcl5. Pcl6 has issues.

On 5/31/2021 3:14 PM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Mon, 31 May 2021 18:10:27 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote:
>> Although, it is orders of magnitude more stable than the windows print
>> manager which regularly refuses to accept that the printer is on and
>> online.
>>
>
> I have the same problem with my Windows 7 laptop and Brother HL-
> L2380DW printer via wireless. I stumbled on a solution of resetting
> the print spooler, and that works every time (until the next time I
> shut down or restart or hibernate).
>
> I created the following batch file, then set its properties to run
> elevated:
>
> net stop Spooler
> net start Spooler
> @pause
>
> I created a shortcut to the batch file, with shortcut key
> Ctrl+Shift+Alt+P for print.
>

Because I also have a fax application, my script is larger --

net stop FAX
net stop spooler
del C:\Windows\System32\spool\PRINTERS\*.shd
del C:\Windows\System32\spool\PRINTERS\*.spl
net start spooler
net start FAX

Pause
Exit

Followup-To set to alt.windows7.general

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

The Republican Party has abandoned all principles and has
instead become a personality cult worshiping Donald Trump.

On 6/1/2021 8:13 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:40:12, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote (my
> responses usually follow points raised):
>> On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>        Any decent printer should understand Postscript
>>>
>> I don't know of any printer that handles PostScript files other than
>> PostScript printers. OTOH. since valid PostScript files can be written
>> in ASCII (but gets complicated when images are involved), PostScript
>> printers are as universal as it gets because they are independent of
>> the OS.
>>
>> The "downside" is that they are not aimed at casual users. My PS
>> printers and the apps that generate valid PS cost well over $100k US.
>>
> Agreed. They tend to be aimed at the sort of corporate space that can
> handle floor-standing printers (even if the PS-compatible ones aren't
> _actually_ floor-standing).
>Since the PostScript language became the standard "driver" for offset
printing in the mid 1980s, PostScript printers were primarily proofing
printers that made "desktop publishing" possible.

> I was thinking more the budget end - where the common denominator is a
> CMYK raster.
>
That would still depend on OS and device-specific code to interpret the
raster into a format the printer understood. About as close as it gets
in that direction is PDF, which is an offshoot of the PostScript
language. Even though valid PDF files can also be written in ASCII, I
don't know of any "PDF printers" that could interpret a PDF file without
specific printer drivers.

> I think the analogy someone came up with, of the keyboard, is a good
> one; if you get one of the keyboards with multimedia keys,
> colour-changing LEDs, and so on, and plug it into any old PC - the fancy
> extras won't work, but it'll still function as a keyboard. The same
> applies to a gaming mouse, I think.
>
There are also keyboards that can work with different OSes. For example,
we use one with our Android tablets that connects via Bluetooth, and it
also supports Apple and PC OSes. The code to do that is built into the
keyboard. Since every printer is somewhat unique w/r/t code, it would be
unlikely that anyone would undertake the immense amount of code required.

--
best regards,

Neil

In article <s98h5c$aqj$1@dont-email.me>, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com>
wrote:

> > I think the analogy someone came up with, of the keyboard, is a good
> > one; if you get one of the keyboards with multimedia keys,
> > colour-changing LEDs, and so on, and plug it into any old PC - the fancy
> > extras won't work, but it'll still function as a keyboard. The same
> > applies to a gaming mouse, I think.
> >
> There are also keyboards that can work with different OSes. For example,
> we use one with our Android tablets that connects via Bluetooth, and it
> also supports Apple and PC OSes. The code to do that is built into the
> keyboard.

keyboards in the past 20+ years comply with the usb or bluetooth hid
(human interface device) standard and will work with *any* platform/os,
as do pointing devices.

the *extra* stuff (multimedia keys, etc.) is non-standard and requires
a custom driver for that to work. without such a driver, it's just an
ordinary keyboard.

> Since every printer is somewhat unique w/r/t code, it would be
> unlikely that anyone would undertake the immense amount of code required.

they have. apple airprint and google cloud print.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:40:12, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote (my
> responses usually follow points raised):
> >On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >> Any decent printer should understand Postscript
> >>
> >I don't know of any printer that handles PostScript files other than
> >PostScript printers. OTOH. since valid PostScript files can be written
> >in ASCII (but gets complicated when images are involved), PostScript
> >printers are as universal as it gets because they are independent of
> >the OS.
> >
> >The "downside" is that they are not aimed at casual users. My PS
> >printers and the apps that generate valid PS cost well over $100k US.
> >
> Agreed. They tend to be aimed at the sort of corporate space that can
> handle floor-standing printers (even if the PS-compatible ones aren't
> _actually_ floor-standing).
>
> I was thinking more the budget end - where the common denominator is a
> CMYK raster.

Sigh! Another case of misrepresentation by omission.

This is what I *actually* wrote:

<quote>

See Paul's response.

Any decent printer should understand Postscript or/and some level of
(HP's) PCL (Printer Command Language [1]), probably PCL5 or PCL6. And
I'm sure that any decent Windows (Oops, you included Windows 10! :-))
has generic drivers for these languages.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_Command_Language>

</quote>

Neil silently snipped my reference to Paul's post and silently snipped
my comments about PCL, which is much more common than Postscript.

So now we have irrelevant harping about Postscript, while the
important part - use of PCL - gets ignored! :-(

[...]

Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >
> > Any decent printer should understand Postscript

Don't silently snip - the most important - parts of people's posts and
do not misrepresent by snipping mid-sentence.

Because of your misrepresentation, the most important parts of my post
got ignored/lost. Thanks for wasting my time.

[...]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 14:03:24, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
[]
>> I was thinking more the budget end - where the common denominator is
>>a CMYK raster.
>>
>That would still depend on OS and device-specific code to interpret the
>raster into a format the printer understood. About as close as it gets
>in that direction is PDF, which is an offshoot of the PostScript
>language. Even though valid PDF files can also be written in ASCII, I
>don't know of any "PDF printers" that could interpret a PDF file
>without specific printer drivers.

(Apologies where attributions have got tangled.)

To me, PCL/Postscript/PDF are high-level "languages" - they imply at
least that the printing engine has fonts in it. Far above my basic
raster receiver, which I _don't_ think needs software or hardware in the
printer, other than one head-pass's worth of storage for ink dots and
the electronics/firmware to rotate the raster.

(I'm assuming most modern cheap printers _can't_ emulate a teletype, as
early "dot matrix" [ribbon] ones could, i. e. you could send them a .txt
file - in fact that was their default; if you wanted to address pins,
you had to send them the special code[s] to put them into "graphics
mode".)
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

… too popular actually to be any good. - Alison Graham in Radio Times 2-8
February 2013

CALM DOWN SLOOTWEG. THE BEAUTY OF INTERNET IS TO SNIP ANYTHING THAT
MAKES SENSE AND REPLACE WITH WHATEVER IS GOING TO CAUSE UNNECESSARY
ARGUMENT.

LIFE'S HAS ALWAYS BEEN LIKE THAT.

On 02/06/2021 20:06, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Thanks for wasting my time.
>
> [...]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 14:03:24, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote (my
> responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>>> I was thinking more the budget end - where the common denominator is
>>> a CMYK raster.
>>>
>> That would still depend on OS and device-specific code to interpret
>> the raster into a format the printer understood. About as close as it
>> gets in that direction is PDF, which is an offshoot of the PostScript
>> language. Even though valid PDF files can also be written in ASCII, I
>> don't know of any "PDF printers" that could interpret a PDF file
>> without specific printer drivers.
>
> (Apologies where attributions have got tangled.)
>
> To me, PCL/Postscript/PDF are high-level "languages" - they imply at
> least that the printing engine has fonts in it. Far above my basic
> raster receiver, which I _don't_ think needs software or hardware in the
> printer, other than one head-pass's worth of storage for ink dots and
> the electronics/firmware to rotate the raster.
>
> (I'm assuming most modern cheap printers _can't_ emulate a teletype, as
> early "dot matrix" [ribbon] ones could, i. e. you could send them a .txt
> file - in fact that was their default; if you wanted to address pins,
> you had to send them the special code[s] to put them into "graphics mode".)
> []

Some printers, like the dot matrix, the protocol just
sent information about when/what hammers to strike.
Rasterizing was done on the computer end.

Whereas the "description languages", those use a parser
in the printer. Today, they could probably afford to use
an ARM core in a SOC, for that. And a single DRAM chip
would have all the RAM needed (32 bit wide DRAM chip).

Paul

On 6/2/2021 3:45 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 14:03:24, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote (my
> responses usually follow points raised):
> []
>>> I was thinking more the budget end - where the common denominator is
>>> a  CMYK raster.
>>>
>> That would still depend on OS and device-specific code to interpret
>> the raster into a format the printer understood. About as close as it
>> gets in that direction is PDF, which is an offshoot of the PostScript
>> language. Even though valid PDF files can also be written in ASCII, I
>> don't know of any "PDF printers" that could interpret a PDF file
>> without specific printer drivers.
>
> (Apologies where attributions have got tangled.)
>
> To me, PCL/Postscript/PDF are high-level "languages" - they imply at
> least that the printing engine has fonts in it. Far above my basic
> raster receiver, which I _don't_ think needs software or hardware in the
> printer, other than one head-pass's worth of storage for ink dots and
> the electronics/firmware to rotate the raster.
>
PostScript and PDFs can (and typically did) embed fonts in the
document's code. The presumption is that the fonts would NOT exist in
the printer (offset press, etc.), and if even they did by name, may not
be the same make (e.g. Adobe vs. some other make) or respond to the
parameters set in the document in the same way.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 6/2/2021 2:56 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:40:12, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote (my
>> responses usually follow points raised):
>>> On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> Any decent printer should understand Postscript
>>>>
>>> I don't know of any printer that handles PostScript files other than
>>> PostScript printers. OTOH. since valid PostScript files can be written
>>> in ASCII (but gets complicated when images are involved), PostScript
>>> printers are as universal as it gets because they are independent of
>>> the OS.
>>>
>>> The "downside" is that they are not aimed at casual users. My PS
>>> printers and the apps that generate valid PS cost well over $100k US.
>>>
>> Agreed. They tend to be aimed at the sort of corporate space that can
>> handle floor-standing printers (even if the PS-compatible ones aren't
>> _actually_ floor-standing).
>>
>> I was thinking more the budget end - where the common denominator is a
>> CMYK raster.
>
> Sigh! Another case of misrepresentation by omission.
>
> This is what I *actually* wrote:
>
> <quote>
>
> See Paul's response.
>
> Any decent printer should understand Postscript or/and some level of
> (HP's) PCL (Printer Command Language [1]), probably PCL5 or PCL6. And
> I'm sure that any decent Windows (Oops, you included Windows 10! :-))
> has generic drivers for these languages.
>
> [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printer_Command_Language>
>
> </quote>
>
> Neil silently snipped my reference to Paul's post and silently snipped
> my comments about PCL, which is much more common than Postscript.
>
> So now we have irrelevant harping about Postscript, while the
> important part - use of PCL - gets ignored! :-(
>
> [...]
>
I was responding specifically to your comments about PostScript. The PS
language is unlike PCL with regard to either intent or implementation.
So, while PCL may have been the "important part" to you, it was
important to me to differentiate rather than conflate the two.

--
best regards,

Neil

On 6/2/2021 3:06 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>
>>> Any decent printer should understand Postscript
>
> Don't silently snip - the most important - parts of people's posts and
> do not misrepresent by snipping mid-sentence.
>
> Because of your misrepresentation, the most important parts of my post
> got ignored/lost. Thanks for wasting my time.
>
> [...]
>
As I explained in my other response to you, my intent was to clarify
your misunderstanding of the PostScript language and therefore of
PostScript printers.

Sorry that you didn't understand the points I was making.

--
best regards,

Neil

Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> On 6/2/2021 3:06 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Any decent printer should understand Postscript
> >
> > Don't silently snip - the most important - parts of people's posts and
> > do not misrepresent by snipping mid-sentence.
> >
> > Because of your misrepresentation, the most important parts of my post
> > got ignored/lost. Thanks for wasting my time.
> >
> > [...]
> >
> As I explained in my other response to you, my intent was to clarify
> your misunderstanding of the PostScript language and therefore of
> PostScript printers.

If you had *read* my post, instead of silently snipping it, you would
have known that PostScript was brought up by Paul. So there's no
"misunderstanding" on my side.

> Sorry that you didn't understand the points I was making.

Of course I understood the points you were making. My criticism is
that your silent snipping - even mid-sentence - caused the most
important parts of my post getting ignored/lost (by John).

But that's what silent snippers do, they always blame the other party,
not their own actions.

On 6/3/2021 11:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> On 6/2/2021 3:06 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Any decent printer should understand Postscript
>>>
>>> Don't silently snip - the most important - parts of people's posts and
>>> do not misrepresent by snipping mid-sentence.
>>>
>>> Because of your misrepresentation, the most important parts of my post
>>> got ignored/lost. Thanks for wasting my time.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>> As I explained in my other response to you, my intent was to clarify
>> your misunderstanding of the PostScript language and therefore of
>> PostScript printers.
>
> If you had *read* my post, instead of silently snipping it, you would
> have known that PostScript was brought up by Paul. So there's no
> "misunderstanding" on my side.
>
I did read your post. You wrote:

" See Paul's response.

" Any decent printer should understand Postscript or/and some level of
(HP's) PCL (Printer Command Language [1]), probably PCL5 or PCL6. And
I'm sure that any decent Windows (Oops, you included Windows 10! :-))
has generic drivers for these languages."

It was YOUR statement that I responded to, as you were equating
PostScript printers with PCL printers. Or, are you denying that YOU
wrote the above? Since they are not equivalent, I explained the
difference. Some understood that, clearly you do not.

>> Sorry that you didn't understand the points I was making.
>
> Of course I understood the points you were making. My criticism is
> that your silent snipping - even mid-sentence - caused the most
> important parts of my post getting ignored/lost (by John).
>
John responded to my comments, and he understood what I wrote and gave
examples of his understanding. That is the nature of SUB-THREADS that
are still on-topic.

> But that's what silent snippers do, they always blame the other party,
> not their own actions.
>

--
best regards,

Neil

On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 11:19:39, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote (my
responses usually follow points raised):
>On 6/2/2021 3:45 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 14:03:24, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote
>>(my responses usually follow points raised):
>> []
>>>> I was thinking more the budget end - where the common denominator
>>>>is a  CMYK raster.
>>>>
>>> That would still depend on OS and device-specific code to interpret
>>>the raster into a format the printer understood. About as close as it
>>>gets in that direction is PDF, which is an offshoot of the PostScript
>>>language. Even though valid PDF files can also be written in ASCII, I
>>>don't know of any "PDF printers" that could interpret a PDF file
>>>without specific printer drivers.
>> (Apologies where attributions have got tangled.)
>> To me, PCL/Postscript/PDF are high-level "languages" - they imply at
>>least that the printing engine has fonts in it. Far above my basic
>>raster receiver, which I _don't_ think needs software or hardware in
>>the printer, other than one head-pass's worth of storage for ink dots
>>and the electronics/firmware to rotate the raster.
>>
>PostScript and PDFs can (and typically did) embed fonts in the
>document's code. The presumption is that the fonts would NOT exist in
>the printer (offset press, etc.), and if even they did by name, may not
>be the same make (e.g. Adobe vs. some other make) or respond to the
>parameters set in the document in the same way.
>
Sorry, I'd forgotten about embedded-in-document fonts. I still consider
PCL/Postscript/PDF as high level "languages", as they imply the printing
engine understands the _concept_ of a font. My "universal raster"
concept would have the computer, not the printer, do the rasterisation.

(But as I've said, it's pie in the sky anyway - will never happen.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Train sets are like breasts: they are intended for children but it's dads who
have the most fun playing with them. - Nick Odell in UMRA, 2021-2-10

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in
news:xV5cO4J6ZWugFwMW@255soft.uk:

> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 11:19:39, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com>
> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>> [...]
> Sorry, I'd forgotten about embedded-in-document fonts. I still
> consider PCL/Postscript/PDF as high level "languages", as they
> imply the printing engine understands the _concept_ of a font. My
> "universal raster" concept would have the computer, not the
> printer, do the rasterisation.
>
> (But as I've said, it's pie in the sky anyway - will never
> happen.)

It's been done, to some extent. A "Winprinter" a.k.a. GDI printer
was an attempt to make printers less expensive by letting Microsoft
Windows do the rasterization, however, each Winprinter's drivers are
Windows-specific and far from your stated goal of "universal".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Device_Interface#GDI_printers
https://everything2.com/title/winprinter

Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> On 6/3/2021 11:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> >> On 6/2/2021 3:06 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any decent printer should understand Postscript
> >>>
> >>> Don't silently snip - the most important - parts of people's posts and
> >>> do not misrepresent by snipping mid-sentence.
> >>>
> >>> Because of your misrepresentation, the most important parts of my post
> >>> got ignored/lost. Thanks for wasting my time.
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >> As I explained in my other response to you, my intent was to clarify
> >> your misunderstanding of the PostScript language and therefore of
> >> PostScript printers.
> >
> > If you had *read* my post, instead of silently snipping it, you would
> > have known that PostScript was brought up by Paul. So there's no
> > "misunderstanding" on my side.
> >
> I did read your post. You wrote:
>
> " See Paul's response.
>
> " Any decent printer should understand Postscript or/and some level of
> (HP's) PCL (Printer Command Language [1]), probably PCL5 or PCL6. And
> I'm sure that any decent Windows (Oops, you included Windows 10! :-))
> has generic drivers for these languages."
>
> It was YOUR statement that I responded to, as you were equating
> PostScript printers with PCL printers. Or, are you denying that YOU
> wrote the above? Since they are not equivalent, I explained the
> difference. Some understood that, clearly you do not.

Nice try, but no cigar! I didn't "equate" anything. That a printer
understands one or/and the other, does not make them equal or even
similar.

And once more - your footstamping aside - I fully understood what you
wrote (see quote below).

> >> Sorry that you didn't understand the points I was making.
> >
> > Of course I understood the points you were making. My criticism is
> > that your silent snipping - even mid-sentence - caused the most
> > important parts of my post getting ignored/lost (by John).
> >
> John responded to my comments, and he understood what I wrote and gave
> examples of his understanding. That is the nature of SUB-THREADS that
> are still on-topic.

<whoosh!>

Clue-by-four: silent(ly)

> > But that's what silent snippers do, they always blame the other party,
> > not their own actions.

Non-response duly noted.

(AFAIC,) EOND.

On 6/3/21 5:51 PM, Mark Blain wrote:
> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote in
> news:xV5cO4J6ZWugFwMW@255soft.uk:
>
>> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 11:19:39, Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com>
>> wrote (my responses usually follow points raised):
>>> [...]
>> Sorry, I'd forgotten about embedded-in-document fonts. I still
>> consider PCL/Postscript/PDF as high level "languages", as they
>> imply the printing engine understands the _concept_ of a font. My
>> "universal raster" concept would have the computer, not the
>> printer, do the rasterisation.
>>
>> (But as I've said, it's pie in the sky anyway - will never
>> happen.)
>
> It's been done, to some extent. A "Winprinter" a.k.a. GDI printer
> was an attempt to make printers less expensive by letting Microsoft
> Windows do the rasterization, however, each Winprinter's drivers are
> Windows-specific and far from your stated goal of "universal".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_Device_Interface#GDI_printers
> https://everything2.com/title/winprinter

Which is exactly what Atari did with its laser printers.

http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/16bits/printers/laser/slm804.html
--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.6
Windows 10 20H2
Firefox 87.0
Thunderbird 78.11.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 6/4/2021 10:22 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>> On 6/3/2021 11:53 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/2/2021 3:06 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/1/2021 3:53 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any decent printer should understand Postscript
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't silently snip - the most important - parts of people's posts and
>>>>> do not misrepresent by snipping mid-sentence.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because of your misrepresentation, the most important parts of my post
>>>>> got ignored/lost. Thanks for wasting my time.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>> As I explained in my other response to you, my intent was to clarify
>>>> your misunderstanding of the PostScript language and therefore of
>>>> PostScript printers.
>>>
>>> If you had *read* my post, instead of silently snipping it, you would
>>> have known that PostScript was brought up by Paul. So there's no
>>> "misunderstanding" on my side.
>>>
>> I did read your post. You wrote:
>>
>> " See Paul's response.
>>
>> " Any decent printer should understand Postscript or/and some level of
>> (HP's) PCL (Printer Command Language [1]), probably PCL5 or PCL6. And
>> I'm sure that any decent Windows (Oops, you included Windows 10! :-))
>> has generic drivers for these languages."
>>
>> It was YOUR statement that I responded to, as you were equating
>> PostScript printers with PCL printers. Or, are you denying that YOU
>> wrote the above? Since they are not equivalent, I explained the
>> difference. Some understood that, clearly you do not.
>
> Nice try, but no cigar! I didn't "equate" anything. That a printer
> understands one or/and the other, does not make them equal or even
> similar.
>
> And once more - your footstamping aside - I fully understood what you
> wrote (see quote below).
>
And yet again, you demonstrate that you demonstrate your lack of
understanding of any aspect of either what I wrote or why John responded
to my post and not yours. Usenet does not belong to you. See below for a
clue.

>>>> Sorry that you didn't understand the points I was making.
>>>
>>> Of course I understood the points you were making. My criticism is
>>> that your silent snipping - even mid-sentence - caused the most
>>> important parts of my post getting ignored/lost (by John).
>>>
>> John responded to my comments, and he understood what I wrote and gave
>> examples of his understanding. That is the nature of SUB-THREADS that
>> are still on-topic.
>
> <whoosh!>
>
> Clue-by-four: silent(ly)
>
>>> But that's what silent snippers do, they always blame the other party,
>>> not their own actions.
>
> Non-response duly noted.
>
> (AFAIC,) EOND.
>

--
best regards,

Neil

Neil <neil@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
[...]

> And yet again, you demonstrate that you demonstrate your lack of
> understanding of any aspect of either what I wrote or why John responded
> to my post and not yours. Usenet does not belong to you. See below for a
> clue.

Let's agree to disagree. We're on completely seperate pages and it's
very unlikely that that will change.

Having said that: (As I said,) I did/do fully understand what you
wrote. I also did/do understand why John responded to your post and not
to mine. And indeed, Usenet doesn't belong to me (or you).

I think there's no point reiterating *my* point, so I won't.

Better luck next time.