> Date:    Wed, 8 Apr 1998 23:51:33 EDT
> From:    WirtAtmar <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: FW: forms packages <plug> for QueryCalc

[snip]

> Let me disagree reasonably vigorously with Bruce on this point. There are an
> infinity of things that can be created on a PostScript printer that cannot
be
> created on a PCL printer.

Wirt, would you mind detailing a couple of examples of those things that
cannot be created on a PCL printer?  With the addition of HP-GL to PCL5
(several years ago), all the obvious things like shaded/rotated text
became possible.  I'm not aware of any functionality that would be of
use to a forms user that is missing from PCL.


> >  The
> >  computational expense for a PCL form is incurred once, when the form is
> >  first created; thereafter, it's simply downloaded. Moreover, it's
> >  downloaded only once per job -- unlike PostScript, where it's downloaded
> >  with each page.
>
> That's not quite true, either. PostScript Level 2 allows forms caching
> (download once/reuse often -- although to be absolutely honest, we don't use
> the feature in QueryCalc in order to be backwards compatible with Level 1
> printers; however, Level 1 printers are rapidly disappearing from the scene
> and we may change over to forms caching in another year or so, when the
> probability level reaches near certainty that we'll never see a Level 1
> printer. It is simply part and parcel of our business philosophy that a
little
> inefficiency is highly preferable when compared to the costs of having to
> explain to an ordinary business user some arcane process that he or she will
> have to invoke to make QC work with their equipment. The ultimate goal is to
> have everything work the first time out of the box -- and every time
> thereafter, with absolutely no excuses from us).

<plug> I'll quietly point out that we've supported PS Level 2 forms
caching since shortly after the first Level 2 printers became available,
and that we will support Level 3 features in the not too distant future
as these printers become more widely available.</plug>

Again, I'll state my opinion that today the two are roughly equivalent.
Both Wirt and Bruce seem to be discussing old issues that are no longer
necessarily valid.

[snip]

> Indeed, when we first gave serious thought to adopting PostScript -- and
later
> again thought of completely abandoning PCL (for a whole raft of reasons, but
> most especially the inability of HP to produce two printers that acted
> precisely the same) -- five or six years ago I spent a great deal of time
> intercepting downloaded PS code from our Macintoshes.

The PCL problem you describe was solved many years ago when the PCL 5
imaging model was standardised.  Now the same PCL prints the same way on
all PCL printers.  We have many customers that create forms for HP
LaserJet III's (a reasonable lowest common denominator) and then print
them on all manor of 4's, 5's and 6's.  No problem.

[snip]
> >  >But the
> >  >quality of output is significantly (to greatly) better.
> >
> >  This is misleading in the extreme.
>
> Again, I must disagree, but in Bruce's defense, Bruce may have misunderstood
> what I was saying. Bruce went on to talk about printer resolution. I was
> speaking about overall aesthetic image quality. There is a simple, objective
> test to my statement. Count the number of books, magazines, newspapers,
> advertisements, catalogs, etc. that are put together using PCL -- and
compare
> that number to PostScript-produced documents. I know of no professionally
> produced output that is coded in PCL. It is all 100% PostScript (or one of
its
> phylogenetic cousins).

I think this statistic is misleading.  I don't believe that the fact
that high end publications are produced using Postscript is directly
related to the quality of its output.  It's more related to history than
anything else.  Postscript was in use within the printing industry long
before the first LaserJet rolled off the assembly line in Boise.  Like
our faithful HP3000, it works and nothing substantially better has come
along so there's no reason to switch.  High end layout packages all
support Postscript because that's what the high end printing presses
support.  The only reason they support Postscript is because that's what
they've always supported.

[snip]

> Does quality of output matter? If you're the electric company and need to
> print 500,000 invoices -- and you don't give a hoot what the invoices look
> like because you've got the customers over a barrel anyway -- then probably
> not. But if you're printing only 1000 invoices, and you want to impress your
> customers with the level of care and quality that you put into every aspect
of
> your business, then it most likely matters a great deal.

This is an excellent point, and one that bears repeating.  If your main
contact with your customer is through the printed word then that's what
your customer's perception of you is based on.  If you want to be
perceived as a professional company that produces a quality product,
then you *must* produce professional looking, quality documents for your
customer.

Rob
=======================================================
Rob McDougall            Phone:  (613)751-4800 ext.5232
JetForm Corporation      Fax:    (613)751-4864
http://www.jetform.com   mailto:[log in to unmask]
=======================================================