Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 27 Mar 1995 14:56:57 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
The "HP Extra!" insert to the February 1995 HP Advisor, HP3000
Edition, contains an article by Dave Wilde, a product manager in
CSY, about system printers after the demise of HP-IB.
Some points from the article:
- only the HP5000 F-series printers are currently available with
a SCSI interface;
- since HP2680 printers support only HP-IB, they can not be
connected to the 9x9KS systems;
- older 256x model A & B printers can be converted to serial, but
not to LAN (as an aside, last summer, the price was > $1000 per
printer to convert these older printers to serial);
- the article presents a table of suggested baud rates for serial
printers;
- serial is not as robust as HP-IB (this has already been
discussed on this list and in HP Professional);
- HP's spooler does not support LAN printers (a number of
3rd-parties plus Netware/iX do);
- "HP is investigating" whether to offer a "HP-supported solution
for printing to LAN-attached printers directly from the HP3000
spooler" (note: this backs away from comments made at Interex
'94 in Denver); and,
- a document on spooler recovery for serial attached printers
(ID# 32615) is available via the HP First faxback service
(800-333-1917).
Some comments from my experience in converting from HP-IB to
serial printing and from my reading of Dave Wilde's article:
- you will not be satisfied with the recovery capability of
serial in comparison to that of HP-IB;
- if your only option is serial, become very familiar with the
SPSAVE option of SPOOLF, as well as those hints given in the
above mentioned HP First document;
- don't hold your breath for a LAN-printing solution from HP;
and,
- we still need someone to compare the robustness of recovery of
SCSI-attached printers and LAN-attached printers to our old
familiar, and highly reliable, HP-IB -attached printers (any
HP-ers lurking who would like to take a shot at this?). If they
are no better than serial, then it seems we are taking a giant
step backwards.
John Burke
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|