home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!att!fang!gator!towers!bluemoon!cmhgate!p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG!Adam.Frix
- From: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix)
- Sender: ufgate@cmhgate.fidonet.org (newsout1.26)
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.hardware
- Subject: Re: LaserWriter 6x0 and Photograde
- Message-ID: <1057306.2B5C12EC@cmhgate.fidonet.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Jan 93 01:34:41 EST
- Organization: FidoNet node 1:226/20.18 - cmhGate UF Gateway, Columbus OH
- Lines: 30
-
- bauer@informatik.uni-ulm.de (Christian Bauer) writes:
-
- CB> If you consider the particle size (600dpi) of the toner the
- CB> FinePrint (RET) of the HP makes no real sense, as the variation
- CB> of laser pulses can't be followed by the Paricles of the toner.
- CB> In 300 dpi this has (toner was capable of 400 to 450 dpi)
- CB> made sense now it is only a technical feature until they have
- CB> a toner with double the resolution of 600 dpi!
-
- I guess I'm a _little_ confused as to what you're saying, so pardon me if I
- sound stupid here, but:
-
- HP is advertising that the toner particles for the new LJ4 are different,
- microfine, and otherwise much smaller than previous toner particles for
- previous LaserJet printers. I have no reason to disbelieve them.
-
- If you're thinking that HP is still using the old toner particle size in the
- new printer, it looks like that's not the case--and therefore their RET
- FinePrint should work out of the box. At least, that's what I'm counting on
- for my department's purchase of one of these puppies.
-
- Anyone else have any different knowledge on this?
-
- Aloha,
- --Adam--
-
- --
- Adam Frix via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
- UUCP: ...!uunet.uu.net!towers!bluemoon!cmhgate!20.18!Adam.Frix
- INET: Adam.Frix@p18.f20.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG
-