Stan writes:

> Hmmm...guess our HP LaserJet 5 Si MX isn't "modern", because we don't
>  get those messages :)

That doesn't surprise me. The 5 series was almost identical to the 4. I
presume that to be true of the 6 as well.

By chance we've never owned any LaserJet 5 or 6 printers. We bought a number
of LaserJet 4's some time ago. When they began to wear out, they were
replaced with the 4000 series printers. But these new printers (4000, 5000,
8000, 8500 series) are the printers are that users are now currently buying
in large numbers. And these are the printers that either don't work well --
or don't work at all.

While there has been some (substantial) exaggeration of my original comments
in this thread, I repeat again that what initially worked well when network
printing was first released, doesn't now.

To assure myself that the recommendation that I've been telling our customers
for the last half year is true, I again this evening reconnected a LaserJet
4000 to an external JetDirect EX card, connecting it to the printer's
parallel port, skipping the internal MIO card altogether. And once again, the
printer became extremely well-behaved when using network printing on the
3000. All of the spooler problems that are associated with the printer's
internal network card simply disappear.

Clearly then, the problems lie with the new MIO cards and whatever PJL
routines they have encoded in them. Equally clearly, there are two distinct
ways to correct the current problem. One is to update the code in MPE's
spooler to recognize and understand the new PJL protocols. The second is a
workaround: purchase an external JetDirect card for every one of these new
printers [and not purchase the "N" (network) option for these devices, even
though that's their intended use].

I have absolutely no complaint about having to purchase external JetDirect
cards for non-HP printers. We've done that for a number of printers
(Tektronix color lasers, Apple LaserWriters, etc.) and it's always worked
amazingly well. Indeed, if you look through Bruce Toback's webbot search
engine, you'll see how often I've mentioned how pleased I am with network
printing on the HP3000. The only non-HP printer that we've not been able to
put on the network by doing this was a $30 Radio Shack/Tandy dot matrix
printer that I attempted to connect on Chris Bartram's suggestion.

The sole hitch to using these external cards as a workaround  for the HP
printers is you have to explain this to the user before they buy their HP
printers, not afterwards. There tends to be a little disgruntlement when they
find that their "all-HP" solution won't work well (or at all), especially now
that the datasheets for these new HP printers say quite clearly that they do
work with MPE/iX. Nor am I sure that most people would even think of
abandoning their internal cards for an external JetDirect card. Ironically,
for as long as people have been asking for the datasheets to mention MPE/iX,
when it finally comes to fruition, it isn't totally true.

To date, it is my understanding (or experience) that the 4000, 5000, and 8000
printers work only marginally well when connected to the printer's internal
network card. It is also my understanding (or experience) that the 750 large
format series and 8500 color laser series printers do not work at all with
HP3000 network printing. However, the printers themselves are not defective.
If you attach an external JetDirect card (and I can only be sure that the EX
series work), all of the prior printing problems are corrected.

That was the crux of my original comments, and remains so now. It would seem
a somewhat trivial problem to correct that has nothing to do with third-party
competition, the reason not to do it, as was suggested at the Management
Roundtable in San Francisco. It is solely a software maintenance problem.

However, regarding the subject of third-party competition, I continue to
stand by my comments regarding the odd notion that HP should maintain
incompetent or incomplete FOS solutions as a method of protecting or
preserving a third-party's niche. I consider that, if not rubbish, then
outright nonsense. If CSY doesn't diligently work to produce the most
excellent, the most capable, the most transparently simple system possible,
then we will all lose, HP'er, consultant, vendor, third-party software
developer, and end-user alike. Arguing for any other path is one that pushes
us towards failure. The HP3000's sole claim to fame is its extraordinary
reliability and simplicity of operation -- without excuses.

Wirt Atmar