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 ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
