On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Kurt Buff <[email protected]> wrote: >>> ... PostScript was significantly slower, and used significantly more memory >>> ... >> >> True, but bumping RAM on printers is the quickest way to fix that, >> aside from replacing them. > > RAM helps the memory issue, but the CPU is the same. > >> What are you doing running printers from 2001 still? > > My comparison was done in 2001. Given the results, we switched to > PCL and stayed there. I don't have more recent data. I don't see any > reason to suppose that PCL has become faster than PostScript. While > CPUs have gotten faster, printer CPU speed is not the penis-length > contest we have in the general purpose PC world, so printer CPUs have > also gotten smaller, cheaper, cooler, and more power efficient. So > the PDL difference may still be significant. I don't care enough to > run new tests. > > We actually do have a few printers from 2001 kicking around in light > duty areas, and our big Konica copiers are about that old. They work, > they're meeting demand, operating costs are only barely higher than > expensive new equipment, why should we replace them? It's a printer; > if it prints, it works. Keeping up with the Joneses generates no ROI > for us. > > -- Ben
OK - just a suggestion. If a 10 minute test of a PS driver on your server isn't worth it to you, that's fine. Kurt ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
