Re: Printers using free software only
On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 12:29:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
> On Sat 28 Jul 2012 at 15:45:44 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:17:22 +0100, Brian wrote:
>>
>> > Anyway: a PostScript printer has a PostScript interpreter; a PCL
>> > printer has a PCL interpreter; a PDF printer has a PDF interpreter.
>> > They accept print jobs sent directly to them in the supported
>> > language.
>>
>> And that's the key. No transformations are needed, no necessity for
>> interpreting the input, it's direct. When the printer lacks from PCL6
>> or PS or PDF interpreter you're missing that capability.
>
> Are you really sending everything as Postscript directly to the printer?
> Nothing goes through CUPS? Could it be we have different ideas of
> 'directly'?
Sometimes I need to overpass CUPS (or the Windows printing sub-system)
and directly send a PS file to the printer, it depends on the job. I have
faced situations were the CUPS queue hung when printing big and complex
files while using the "raw" facility went without a glitch.
Of course, this is not a common situation for the "joe" user.
>> Does your printer integrate a PDF interprerter? The ones I managed do
>> not, just PCL6 and PostScript.
>
> No, it does not. Does it need to? This subthread began with the
> statement that
>
> > . . . . a PS printer is also a PDF printer.
>
> so, if we are to accept that, having one isn't important.
No? Then I wonder why my company paid the above mentioned $200-300 for
having a PS module installed in their printers ;-)
> Incidentally, nobody sends PCL6 directly to a printer,
I think "nobody" sounds too wide... maybe "it's not usual" but when you
only have a PCL6 capable printer and one file fails to print with the
usual printing system (File → print → printer driver), I assure you will
try with any option that is available.
Greetings,
--
Camaleón
Reply to: