[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[gwicks]

- Original Message - 
From: "Roy wood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2004 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)


>
> I approached Fred Toussi a while ago about doing an
> upgrade to Text 87 and suggested that he could produce a new version
> using the new colours and adding simple stuff like access to pointer
> driven menus for file selection (via Menu_rext). He was not keen. I
> suggested he gave us the sources and we could get someone to do it but
> he regarded his sources as being secret .

Ah yes, but was he offered serious money?

>
> Qliberator was another story but Ian Stewart, who was my only contact,
> had only a small part in writing it. The other author, whose name
> escapes me, had long since disappeared and the sources were not
> available. I have now no contact for Ian so when the last few copies I
> have are exhausted I cannot sell it.  I have not sold a copy for some
> time so I am not too worried but I would have liked to get it updated.
> -- 

This is really disappointing, because, if the sources were available they
would probably be relatively cheap to buy. It would have been a valuable
contribution to the future of the QL. But again, would money help in a
search for the source code?

Don't forget I am not suggesting asking people for the source code, but
buying it. No trader could afford to do this, because it would have to be
done at a loss. Quanta does have the resources and this could become one way
in which Quanta could better serve the QL community.


Geoff

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[Tony Firshman]

On  Thu, 18 Mar 2004 at 22:45:55, Roy wood wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)

Qliberator was another story but Ian Stewart, who was my only contact, 
had only a small part in writing it. The other author, whose name 
escapes me,
Adrian Soundy
had long since disappeared and the sources were not available. I have 
now no contact for Ian so when the last few copies I have are exhausted 
I cannot sell it.  I have not sold a copy for some time so I am not too 
worried but I would have liked to get it updated.
--
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
 tony@.co.uk  http://www.firshman.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[Roy wood]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dilwyn Jones 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I think if QLiberator and Text87 were achievable, I suspect Roy Wood
and/or Jochen Merz would have secured them by now.
This is indeed true. I approached Fred Toussi a while ago about doing an 
upgrade to Text 87 and suggested that he could produce a new version 
using the new colours and adding simple stuff like access to pointer 
driven menus for file selection (via Menu_rext). He was not keen. I 
suggested he gave us the sources and we could get someone to do it but 
he regarded his sources as being secret and had plans of releasing a 
version for other platforms. In the end, after a lot of pushing from me 
and then a lot more from Marcel we got enough for the Text 87 patch to 
be written.

Qliberator was another story but Ian Stewart, who was my only contact, 
had only a small part in writing it. The other author, whose name 
escapes me, had long since disappeared and the sources were not 
available. I have now no contact for Ian so when the last few copies I 
have are exhausted I cannot sell it.  I have not sold a copy for some 
time so I am not too worried but I would have liked to get it updated.
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501
web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[Dilwyn Jones]

> > Does this fall into the parameters of what you were looking for
> > Geoff - the possibility of paying someone to extend the SDUMP
system.
>
> Of course, a small(ish) job, but one that could be incoporated into
a lot of
> programs. Perhaps we should start thinking of what sort of routines
we would
> like if someone were to write a new DIY toolkit.
Umm, I don't think sdump_rext itself could (or should) be incorporated
into software, for one thing programs would always be stuck with the
version built in even if copyright etc allowed it. But if an enhanced
version were available, whether freely or sold as an upgrade file, I'm
sure many authors like myself would venture more into producing
graphics programs if the screen dumps were there rather than having to
write our own - screen dump writing effort could then be concentrated
into specialist efforts such as minority printers, one could only
expect sdump to support HP and Canon printers over and above the
existing selection I'd have thought.

> Another possibility would be to pay someone to update EasyPtr.
I doubt this, there's already been correspondence on this and I think
the view might be that it would be too difficult for anyone other than
the original author to update, plus TurboPTR is both available, up to
date and supported and now has a degree of possibility of conversionof
Easyptr files.

> This gives me yet another idea. What about Quanta trying to obtain
the
> rights of some old software that is still extensively used? The two
that
> spring to mind are QLiberator and Text87. Anyone with suggestions
for other
> programs?
>
> People often complain that QLiberator is not being updated. Just
think if
> Quanta could buy the rights and then find someone to do what George
Gwilt
> has managed with Turbo.
>
> Text87 is even more interesting. There is still the incompatibilty
with the
> Q60. Also no one seems to know anything about Text87 file
formatting. If we
> did, the RTF/HTM filters could become quite sophisticated. Spell
checking
> could be inproved and, dare I say it, Just Words! writing tools
> incorporated. Would it be possible to make the program more user
friendly
> and put it in a nice PE jacket?
I think if QLiberator and Text87 were achievable, I suspect Roy Wood
and/or Jochen Merz would have secured them by now.

> We cannot expect 6 members of the Quanta committee to come up with
ideas, if
> 300 members and many more non-members cannot!
Exactly! There are plenty of "lurkers" on this list too, so let's see
what we can come up with, would be great to hear from members on this
list who don't write that often!

--
Dilwyn Jones

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[gwicks]

- Original Message - 
From: "Dilwyn Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

> Does this fall into the parameters of what you were looking for
> Geoff - the possibility of paying someone to extend the SDUMP system.

Of course, a small(ish) job, but one that could be incoporated into a lot of
programs. Perhaps we should start thinking of what sort of routines we would
like if someone were to write a new DIY toolkit.

Another possibility would be to pay someone to update EasyPtr.

This gives me yet another idea. What about Quanta trying to obtain the
rights of some old software that is still extensively used? The two that
spring to mind are QLiberator and Text87. Anyone with suggestions for other
programs?

People often complain that QLiberator is not being updated. Just think if
Quanta could buy the rights and then find someone to do what George Gwilt
has managed with Turbo.

Text87 is even more interesting. There is still the incompatibilty with the
Q60. Also no one seems to know anything about Text87 file formatting. If we
did, the RTF/HTM filters could become quite sophisticated. Spell checking
could be inproved and, dare I say it, Just Words! writing tools
incorporated. Would it be possible to make the program more user friendly
and put it in a nice PE jacket?

Another suggestion: Peter Graf does not want paying for his software, but
does he have any development expenses towards which Quanta could contribute?

We cannot expect 6 members of the Quanta committee to come up with ideas, if
300 members and many more non-members cannot!

Geoff

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[gwicks]

- Original Message - 
From: "Jeremy Taffel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> You have said that Quanta is heading towards a £1000 a year structural
> profit. I am also  interested in how much Quanta has in realisable assets.
> The reason I ask, is that as has been pointed out, the pond is now a
puddle
> and rapidly drying out. What good are those assets while they aren't being
> used to good effect?
>
>  I suggest that Quanta decides to work on the basis that it is going to
die
> in N years anyway, and plans to liquidate its assets by investment in good
> projects over that time. This could breathe new life into both the QL, and
> into Quanta, and actually ensure that it keeps going for longer than if it
> just keeps its assets in the bank.  I for one would rejoin if I thought
they
> would actually do something useful with my subscriptions.
>
> £1000 would actually only pay for one week's work for a  programmer in my
> industry.
>

I agree with most of what you are saying, but there are still good grounds
for keeping the capital reasonably intact. The capital is currently £16,000,
which on your figures is only 16 week's work. You won't get any decent
hardware or software from just 16 week's work. That means finding projects
that will bring some returns, no easy task.

At the moment Quanta is failing its members and the QL community and has to
find a better way of using both its income and capital than it is doing now.
If it cannot do this within the next 12 months then a motion at the 2005 AGM
to wind up Quanta would be the best solution.

Geoff

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[Dilwyn Jones]

> This means that Quanta would have a sum of about £1,000 each year to
spend
> on QL development. How should they spend this money?
>
> In fact Quanta would have two possible ways of financially
stimulating QL
> development. Major projects (SGC successor?) could be financed out
of the
> capital. These would have to be backed with good business plans and
legal
> safeguards to ensure that there was a return on the capital and that
Quanta
> does not lose its favourable tax status. Minor projects (mainly
software?)
> could be financed out of subscription income. No financial return
would be
> expected from these and thus there would be fewer legal difficulties
over
> tax etc.
>
> Remember your subscription is your money, not Quanta's. How would
you like
> them to spend it on your behalf?
After a brief exchange of correspondence with Per Witte about programs
we've both been writing recently, I came to the conclusion that one
possible expenditure might be to bring SDUMP up to date, to provide us
with screen dumps for more printers (i.e. HP printers and possibly
Canon control code sets) and also to cope with GD2 modes. If this was
done, it would provide a rudimentary basis for writing graphical
applications without having to write printer dumps from scratch or
learning to program for Proforma/Prowess.

I have a (roughly) one third written graphics program I'd meant
originally to include as a basic paint program with Launchpad but it
was too much work and would have delayed Launchpad quite a bit, so
it's sat on my hard disk waiting for me to pluck up the courage to
tackle adding GD2 screen dumps! (fat chance at the moment)

Sdump is available as an Sdump_rext file which can be loaded resident
on emulators etc and provides the necessary basic and assembler
interfaces, so people like myself who write mostly in compiled basic
could easily use it, and the assembler entries could probably be
easily made available to C programmers too.

Does this fall into the parameters of what you were looking for
Geoff - the possibility of paying someone to extend the SDUMP system.
--
Dilwyn Jones

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[Jeremy Taffel]

Geoff,

You have said that Quanta is heading towards a £1000 a year structural
profit. I am also  interested in how much Quanta has in realisable assets.
The reason I ask, is that as has been pointed out, the pond is now a puddle
and rapidly drying out. What good are those assets while they aren't being
used to good effect?

 I suggest that Quanta decides to work on the basis that it is going to die
in N years anyway, and plans to liquidate its assets by investment in good
projects over that time. This could breathe new life into both the QL, and
into Quanta, and actually ensure that it keeps going for longer than if it
just keeps its assets in the bank.  I for one would rejoin if I thought they
would actually do something useful with my subscriptions.

£1000 would actually only pay for one week's work for a  programmer in my
industry.

Jeremy

- Original Message - 
From: "gwicks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 7:52 PM
Subject: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)


>
>
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)
>
>
> > SNIP<
>
> > I don't know whether offering something like 1000 pounds for software
> would
> > be a good idea.
> >
> > The reason is that it is, in my mind, too much and too little.
> >
> > Let me explain.
> >
> > It is too little. If you want to finance a software author, 1000 pounds
> will
> > get you - what? A month' worth of work?
> >
> > Look at what Peter has told us on this list - if he were offered 2000
> pounds
> > for his ongoing work, he wouldn't accept it, because it would be far
from
> > what the software would be worth...
> > This is a point of view I can share.
> >
> > So, thibking that a professoinal would do some real work for this amount
> of
> > money is, IMHO, just too optimistic.
> >
>
> 
>
> Thanks for this contribution. I can agree with most of what you write.
> Obviously £1,000 is peanuts for a professional programmer's time. All we
> would be doing if we paid for software is giving the author a generous
> present as a token of gratitude.
>
> Nevertheless, there is a long history of people in the QL community doing
a
> lot of work for little reward. Look at the traders who are prepared to
make
> a yearly loss because of their belief in the QL. With Just Words! I do
this
> quite coldly and calculatingly. There is a level I am prepared to go to
and
> no further. (Hence the anger of last year.) The result is that for the
first
> time in years I am now in control of the deficit, Just Words! remains in
> existence and if nothing else QL Today gets a bit of advertising money.
(But
> not yet Quanta - they have yet to prove their reliability - famous last
> words - Just Words! will be financing the QL2004 advertising in the Quanta
> Magazine - however you will get the principle.)
>
> All I am asking is whether a little money would provide a little oil to a
> machine that is slowly rusting to a standstill. (There is, I believe, the
> precedence of the colour drivers.) The question you ask, "What would you
do
> for £1,000?" should be considered by everyone.
>
> Thanks to everyone for their contributions. They are all being carefully
> noted, although unfortunately I have not yet seen much that I can
recommend
> to Quanta. (Some good ideas would fail for legal and practical reasons.)
>
> I am very concerned about the future of Quanta. Most of its money is spent
> on workshops, which I suspect are becoming more and more burnt out, or the
> magazine whose problems are obvious. The one thing Quanta has is financial
> stability. How can we use that for the benefit of its members and the QL
> community?
>
> Geoff
>
>

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

["Phoebus R. Dokos (Φοίβος Ρ. Ντόκος)"]

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 19:22:18 +0100, Wolfgang Lenerz 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I haven't answered on this thread until now mainly because (in the first
attempt...) I wasn't sure whether that kind of money would conceivably 
around
in this matter.

Now that Geoff has given more details, here's my 2 cents' worth.

I don't know whether offering something like 1000 pounds for software 
would
be a good idea.

The reason is that it is, in my mind, too much and too little.

Let me explain.

It is too little. If you want to finance a software author, 1000 pounds 
will
get you - what? A month' worth of work?

Look at what Peter has told us on this list - if he were offered 2000 
pounds
for his ongoing work, he wouldn't accept it, because it would be far from
what the software would be worth...
This is a point of view I can share.



Regarding what Peter said (and to what Timothy and Bill added) I tend to 
believe that it is a reasonable idea to offer Tony a sum in the area of 
â1.000-2.000 (After all how many SMSQ/e's will be sold in the coming 
years?) with the provision that SMSQ/e could be placed under the GPL or 
some modified version of the GPL license (GPL would be ideal for reasons 
explained previously in length) as long as it is completely open and 
beyond any control. The modified GPL license would not prohibit payment of 
royalties when a dealer sells a copy of SMSQ/e (as it is now) as for 
Marcel and QPC, I believe they will still be covered under the previous 
pre-existent agreement (I believe Marcel has mentioned something like that 
or I could be wrong as usual ;-) .

In any case that would keep everybody happy and we could see QlwIP as part 
of the OS and even more developments further ahead.

In a solution like that, Tony retains his copyright, still gets royalties 
(plus he gets a lump sum in anticipation of future royalties that may -or 
may not- happen).
He has opened SMSQ/e (after a fashion) already anyway and from what I 
understand he even considered to open it completely (again I may be 
wrong), so what's the harm?

Phoebus (back from Florida... btw for anyone coming get a swimsuit ;-)



--
Visit the QL-FAQ at:  (Still uploading 
stuff!)
Visit the uQLX-win32 homepage at: 
Visit the uQLX-mac home page at:

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[gwicks]

- Original Message - 
From: "Wolfgang Lenerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)


> SNIP<

> I don't know whether offering something like 1000 pounds for software
would
> be a good idea.
>
> The reason is that it is, in my mind, too much and too little.
>
> Let me explain.
>
> It is too little. If you want to finance a software author, 1000 pounds
will
> get you - what? A month' worth of work?
>
> Look at what Peter has told us on this list - if he were offered 2000
pounds
> for his ongoing work, he wouldn't accept it, because it would be far from
> what the software would be worth...
> This is a point of view I can share.
>
> So, thibking that a professoinal would do some real work for this amount
of
> money is, IMHO, just too optimistic.
>



Thanks for this contribution. I can agree with most of what you write.
Obviously £1,000 is peanuts for a professional programmer's time. All we
would be doing if we paid for software is giving the author a generous
present as a token of gratitude.

Nevertheless, there is a long history of people in the QL community doing a
lot of work for little reward. Look at the traders who are prepared to make
a yearly loss because of their belief in the QL. With Just Words! I do this
quite coldly and calculatingly. There is a level I am prepared to go to and
no further. (Hence the anger of last year.) The result is that for the first
time in years I am now in control of the deficit, Just Words! remains in
existence and if nothing else QL Today gets a bit of advertising money. (But
not yet Quanta - they have yet to prove their reliability - famous last
words - Just Words! will be financing the QL2004 advertising in the Quanta
Magazine - however you will get the principle.)

All I am asking is whether a little money would provide a little oil to a
machine that is slowly rusting to a standstill. (There is, I believe, the
precedence of the colour drivers.) The question you ask, "What would you do
for £1,000?" should be considered by everyone.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions. They are all being carefully
noted, although unfortunately I have not yet seen much that I can recommend
to Quanta. (Some good ideas would fail for legal and practical reasons.)

I am very concerned about the future of Quanta. Most of its money is spent
on workshops, which I suspect are becoming more and more burnt out, or the
magazine whose problems are obvious. The one thing Quanta has is financial
stability. How can we use that for the benefit of its members and the QL
community?

Geoff

Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[Lau]

Wolfgang Uhlig wrote:

Geoff Wicks wrote:

This means that Quanta would have a sum of about £1,000 each year to 
spend on QL development. How should they spend this money?


On march, 8th, Laurence Reeves answered::

 1000 pounds to the person who ports OpenOffice? ;)
That seems like a lot of cash for what is a pretty trivial task.
Lau


If it's so trivial a task, why don't you do it for the money, Geoff offers
you, Lau? ;-))
Wolfgang

Because I'm being a lazy, good-for-nothing slob.

--
Lau
http://www.bergbland.info
Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll 
get the commission!

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[P Witte]

Geoff Wicks writes:

> Remember your subscription is your money, not Quanta's. How would you like
> them to spend it on your behalf?

In a way, hardware development is more deserving as hw developers have real
outlays apart from spare time, ie their "profit" can go negative rather than
just zero. But how relevant is hw development at this time? Rather than the
sexy stuff, like an AuroraII or a Q3500 (!), we would need things like
USB, CD drives and Ethernet just to stay afloat. Can a small sect support
such an undertaking, even with leveraged assistance from Quanta?

I think possibly the best place to start would be with a survey - a massive
and thorough one - to try to determine what punters really, really want.
(See http://www.questionpro.com/ for a way of doing it via email or the web)
I know our record on responding to surveys has not been great in the past,
but things change and lessons are learnt, so, together with the sort of
promotion we saw for QL2000, it could still be a sucess. Without it, we are
blind and cant really hope to get it right.

A survey should determine what people already have and what they wish for;
how much they would be prepared to spend on various proposed strategic and
desirable items; how punters would respond to un-renewable hardware packing
up; how well aware people are of existing alternatives; etc

Keep up the good work Geoff! We need it ;)

Per

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[Dent]

gwicks wrote:



> This means that Quanta would have a sum of about £1,000 each year to spend
> on QL development. How should they spend this money?

> Remember your subscription is your money, not Quanta's. How would you like
> them to spend it on your behalf?
>
> Geoff Wicks.
>
>

Hi
Take a look at the XXS1500 module at: http://www.mycable.de/
This small module has the potential to provide any QL with an
Ethernet and USB interface. With some development on each
side it could be the basis for the solution to several of the
connection problems for "real" QLs

I think the main stumbling block might be the price
that's where the £1000 come in, to subsidize the price to members
any comments
Jon.

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend! (2nd attempt!)

[Wolfgang Uhlig]

Geoff Wicks wrote:

This means that Quanta would have a sum of about £1,000 each year to 
spend on QL development. How should they spend this money?
On march, 8th, Laurence Reeves answered::
 1000 pounds to the person who ports OpenOffice? ;)
That seems like a lot of cash for what is a pretty trivial task.
Lau
If it's so trivial a task, why don't you do it for the money, Geoff offers
you, Lau? ;-))
Wolfgang

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Tony Firshman]

On  Wed, 10 Mar 2004 at 23:37:39, Roy wood wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)

>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>
>>On  Wed, 10 Mar 2004 at 20:00:03, Roy wood wrote:
>>(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>>
>>>
>>>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>>>
The 1430 is particularly good value from www.novatech.co.uk at £118 or
so including VAT.
>>>It is 117.30 at Novatech

>By the way, for those who are puzzled, this is just where I work during
>the daytime. It is not Q Branch or 'my' business. The thing is that the
>guy I work for is obsessed with being the cheapest.
I will remember that (8-)#

... especially when I tried 'buying' that printer to find postal costs,
and although it said £117.50, it then popped up as £200 in checkout!!!

BTW the 1430 does not have expandable memory, so larger numbers (1250 to
1430) does _not_ mean better!

... not a problem for QL use.
I will try it sometime for printing out my QL faxes.

-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
 tony@.co.uk  http://www.firshman.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Roy wood]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On  Wed, 10 Mar 2004 at 20:00:03, Roy wood wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

The 1430 is particularly good value from www.novatech.co.uk at £118 or
so including VAT.
It is 117.30 at Novatech

and at

www.hamiltone.co.uk

it is 113.50

Really, Tony, you not always sling money at these big organisations.
Whoops sorry - I should have checked with you first.
I not do this again (to reply in similar pidgeon E  (8-)#  )
Are you as cheap with carriage...
Yes. All our deliveries are next day if the article is in stock and we 
are about 40p cheaper!

By the way, for those who are puzzled, this is just where I work during 
the daytime. It is not Q Branch or 'my' business. The thing is that the 
guy I work for is obsessed with being the cheapest.
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501
web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Tony Firshman]

On  Wed, 10 Mar 2004 at 20:00:03, Roy wood wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)

>
>In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>>The 1430 is particularly good value from www.novatech.co.uk at £118 or
>>so including VAT.
>It is 117.30 at Novatech
>
>and at
>
>www.hamiltone.co.uk
>
>it is 113.50
>
>Really, Tony, you not always sling money at these big organisations.
Whoops sorry - I should have checked with you first.
I not do this again (to reply in similar pidgeon E  (8-)#  )
Are you as cheap with carriage...

They are _both_ though quite remarkable prices.
It is really a _very_ good and reliable printer and handles _everything_
I throw at it with absolutely no problems.
It is far more trouble free than the expensive HP Laserjet printers I
have owned.
It also takes std simms up to 36mb.

Knuckles duly rapped (8-)#
-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
 tony@.co.uk  http://www.firshman.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Roy wood]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tony Firshman 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

The 1430 is particularly good value from www.novatech.co.uk at £118 or
so including VAT.
It is 117.30 at Novatech

and at

www.hamiltone.co.uk

it is 113.50

Really, Tony, you not always sling money at these big organisations.

I don't have them connected direct to DOS (or QL) so can't be 100% sure
that the windows driver is not converting.  Does anyone have one set up
outside windows to test?
Do you mean in the garden?
If not I will try with a QL.

On a more serious note the Kyocera FS-1010 has a similar emulation 
(although it is a little more expensive) but when you print it does have 
a few oddities. I would be interested to find out if Brother handles the 
emulation any better. If past experience is anything to go by then it 
should because Steve Hall used a Brother printer with his QL for years.

There is also the Epson EPL-6200 (B&W laser) which is also a bit 
expensive but has ESC/P2.
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501
web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Tony Firshman]

On  Mon, 8 Mar 2004 at 12:53:19, SMSQ - Jochen Merz wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)

>
>
>> OK, I don't know much about Epson printers, I admit, but as to HP
>>printers, they
>> all _still_ understand direct (HPPCL-) commands and you can print
>>plain  text to
>> them without a problem from the QL.
>
>I just checked the (German) HP homepage. I have not found
>a single printer where the technical datasheet states that
>it handles PCLx...
>
>Can it be assumed that all of them do? In case you buy one
>and it doesn't anymore - no real reason to complain as it
>is not a documented feature anymore.
Both my Brother lasers (HL-1250 and HL-1430) accept PCLx.
(one 4 and one 6)
>
>However, if they all do it - let's hope they continue to
>do it... as this will probably be the only solution then.

-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
 tony@.co.uk  http://www.firshman.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Tony Firshman]

On  Mon, 8 Mar 2004 at 12:28:33, Jérôme Grimbert wrote:
(ref: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)



>Only option so far is to be picky when buying the printer, checking
>that there is at least a parallel port (and one that does not need
>ECP/EPP, but plain good old parallel port, mono-directional... and no
>fancy mandatory cartridge management...)
>I just like my LX-800 and BJC-600...
I think my Brother laser printers (HL-1250 and the newer HL-1430) might
handle plain text, and they have parallel ports (as well as USB).
The manual says it has an Epson FX-850 mode.
It says it needs setting using a DOS utility.
This suggests plain chr commands, so it may well be possible to emulate
this.   Interestingly, there is also an optional serial interface.

The 1430 is particularly good value from www.novatech.co.uk at £118 or
so including VAT.
I bought the 1430 as I needed a new drum and toner for the old 1250.
It was cheaper to buy a new printer!
I thought this sort of economics only applied to inkjets.
The 1250 is still perfectly good for text printing with the old
consumables. In particular, I expect the drum is good for another 10,000
copies.  It is only showing tiny blemishes on continuous graphics (and
the drum warning LED is on).

I don't have them connected direct to DOS (or QL) so can't be 100% sure
that the windows driver is not converting.  Does anyone have one set up
outside windows to test?  If not I will try with a QL.

-- 
 QBBS (QL fido BBS 2:252/67) +44(0)1442-828255
 tony@.co.uk  http://www.firshman.co.uk
   Voice: +44(0)1442-828254   Fax: +44(0)1442-828255
TF Services, 29 Longfield Road, TRING, Herts, HP23 4DG

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Malcolm Cadman]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Roy wood 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes


My "brother in law" works for lexmark (senior sales director) and I asked
him why Parallel has become extinct on "cheap" inkjets - he said ( as far
as he knows) it is because the Parallel interface is copyrighted and owned
by centronics, and royalties must be paid, whereas USB can be adopted for
free - therefore an extra few pence profit in the cheaper range printers by
adopting USB only.

This is only part of the story. There is also a general move by the 
computer industry to have fewer interfaces and, by extension, fewer 
drivers on a system. USB II is much faster than Parallel - actually 
even USB 1.1 was. They also want to lose the PS/2 ports and use USB for 
keyboard and mouse as well. It is all part of the way that the physical 
makeup of the modern computer is being steered. As I have said before 
the floppy drive is going too!.
Umm ... the iMAC went this way some time ago.

USB for keyboard and any external device ( e.g, digital camera ), and of 
course no floppy disk drive ...

--
Malcolm Cadman

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Dent]

Hi All
Look out for the first Blue Tooth only PC within the next few months if it's
not already around :-(((

Jon.
- Original Message - 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 10:22 AM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE:
[ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!



> This is only part of the story. There is also a general move by the
> computer industry to have fewer interfaces and, by extension, fewer
> drivers on a system. USB II is much faster than Parallel - actually even
> USB 1.1 was. They also want to lose the PS/2 ports and use USB for
> keyboard and mouse as well. It is all part of the way that the physical
> makeup of the modern computer is being steered. As I have said before
> the floppy drive is going too!.
>
>
> Floppy drives have been on the out for a couple of years now - Apple
> started this off by dropping them from the Mac range. Now, here in Ireland
> at least, new DELL computers don't come with floppies as default, and they
> are a 15 euro additional extra. The push is now to use compact flash etc.
> as the removable easily transportable medium, or USB keyring drives (both
> of which work just fine with QPC!!)
>
> Darren.
>

Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Darren . Branagh]

>My "brother in law" works for lexmark (senior sales director) and I asked
>him why Parallel has become extinct on "cheap" inkjets - he said ( as far
>as he knows) it is because the Parallel interface is copyrighted and owned
>by centronics, and royalties must be paid, whereas USB can be adopted for
>free - therefore an extra few pence profit in the cheaper range printers
by
>adopting USB only.
This is only part of the story. There is also a general move by the
computer industry to have fewer interfaces and, by extension, fewer
drivers on a system. USB II is much faster than Parallel - actually even
USB 1.1 was. They also want to lose the PS/2 ports and use USB for
keyboard and mouse as well. It is all part of the way that the physical
makeup of the modern computer is being steered. As I have said before
the floppy drive is going too!.


Floppy drives have been on the out for a couple of years now - Apple
started this off by dropping them from the Mac range. Now, here in Ireland
at least, new DELL computers don't come with floppies as default, and they
are a 15 euro additional extra. The push is now to use compact flash etc.
as the removable easily transportable medium, or USB keyring drives (both
of which work just fine with QPC!!)

Darren.









This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please 
notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this E-mail 
from your system. Thank you.
It is possible for data transmitted by email to be deliberately or
accidentally corrupted or intercepted. For this reason, where the
communication is by email, the Bank of Ireland Group does not accept 
any responsibility for any breach of confidence which may arise 
through the use of this medium.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept 
for the presence of known computer viruses.

  

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[SMSQ - Jochen Merz]

This is only part of the story. There is also a general move by the 
computer industry to have fewer interfaces and, by extension, fewer 
drivers on a system. USB II is much faster than Parallel - actually even 
USB 1.1 was. They also want to lose the PS/2 ports and use USB for 
keyboard and mouse as well. It is all part of the way that the physical 
makeup of the modern computer is being steered. As I have said before 
the floppy drive is going too!.
Well, floppy may even bring us an improvement: I have seen USB
floppy drives from Teac and Sony which claim to be 2x speed!!
Has anyone tested them under QPC? Are they really twice the speed?
I wouldn't mind that (with all the disk copying at the shows!)
Jochen

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Roy wood]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes


My "brother in law" works for lexmark (senior sales director) and I asked
him why Parallel has become extinct on "cheap" inkjets - he said ( as far
as he knows) it is because the Parallel interface is copyrighted and owned
by centronics, and royalties must be paid, whereas USB can be adopted for
free - therefore an extra few pence profit in the cheaper range printers by
adopting USB only.
This is only part of the story. There is also a general move by the 
computer industry to have fewer interfaces and, by extension, fewer 
drivers on a system. USB II is much faster than Parallel - actually even 
USB 1.1 was. They also want to lose the PS/2 ports and use USB for 
keyboard and mouse as well. It is all part of the way that the physical 
makeup of the modern computer is being steered. As I have said before 
the floppy drive is going too!.
--
Roy Wood
Q Branch. 20 Locks Hill, Portslade, Sussex.
Tel: +44 (0) 1273 386030fax: +44 (0) 1273 430501
web : www.qbranch.demon.co.uk

Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Lau]

Dave P wrote:



On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


If you have to use OpenOffice on a PC to print QL documents, why not get
rid of the QL altogther and just use OpenOffice to begin with?


1000 pounds to the person who ports OpenOffice? ;)

Dave

That seems like a lot of cash for what is a pretty trivial task.

--
Lau
http://www.bergbland.info
Get a domain from http://oneandone.co.uk/xml/init?k_id=5165217 and I'll 
get the commission!

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Dilwyn Jones]

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Simon Goodwin mentioned in the last QL Today that there are plenty
of
> > compatible printers out there, as Linux faces a similar problem
>
> Either this was not in QL Today or I really have missed something
here.
Letters page, page 36 of volume 8 issue 5.

The printers page on my website has a list of QL-compatible printers,
contributed by several people.

> Probably one could write a different frontend for the drivers, but I
> don't know how difficult that would be (my gut says that I shouldn't
> touch that task with a 10ft long pole).
This is always the problem with printer-type software. Many of my
programs have had printer drivers over the years and most users seem
to have 'problems' with them. Even the most simple of things like your
driver only prints circles 99% correctly are enough to put you off
having anything to do with putting drivers into software due to the
sheer amount of time you have to spend on supporting the same old
queries over and over again. Most people just won't accept that
getting an Epson printer to print 99% circles is miraculous, never
mind 100%. The printers ain't designed to do it. And if such simple
things as aspect ratios cause that much hassle to software writers,
they certainly ain't going to touch printer drivers with Marcel's 3m
long pole.

 And even then you still need to
> a) alter existing applications according to the new interface or b)
> provide a virtual Epson printer or whatever.
Given that most QLers are used to Epsons in one form or another, with
most QL programs assuming some form of Epson compatibility somewhere
between FX80 and ESC/P (2) that would seem the obvious way to go.

Another possibility for graphics at any rate is to extend the SDUMP
drivers to include HP PCL and possibly Windows GDI-type output, I
suppose, though probably impractical.

> > My theory (where are PROGS when you need them) is that the drivers
> > actually already exist in the main on the QL - in the form of
ProWeSs
> > drivers.
>
> ProForma (which really was much ahead of its time) features some
drivers
> but the last one was written ages ago and therefore it will probably
> have the same problems with current printers.
>From what I remember, Prowess drivers only drove printers with command
sets, not GDI printers. It was possible to generate drivers which
would output GIFs or fax pages or whatever, though. At the end of the
day, drivers are largely filters which convert one form of data into
another. (Here's a block of QL graphics in memory, convert it into
Epson bit image data mr printer driver sir)


--
Dilwyn Jones

[ql-users] RE: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Claude Mourier 00]

And use SBasic instead of Java :-))

-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Dave P
Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2004 16:41
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!





On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> If you have to use OpenOffice on a PC to print QL documents, why not get
> rid of the QL altogther and just use OpenOffice to begin with?

1000 pounds to the person who ports OpenOffice? ;)

Dave

Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Dave P]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> If you have to use OpenOffice on a PC to print QL documents, why not get
> rid of the QL altogther and just use OpenOffice to begin with?

1000 pounds to the person who ports OpenOffice? ;)

Dave

[ql-users] RE: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Claude Mourier 00]

OK : I misunderstood 

-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Marcel Kilgus
Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2004 13:58
À : ql-users
Objet : [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!



Claude Mourier 00 wrote:
> Alternative way (rather then writing printer driver obsolete in a
> couple of month) : to provide a way to export documents with all
> attributes and print then with tools like, saiy, OpenOffice ..

The thing Jochen is talking about is not another printer driver but an
interface to the Windows printing system, which in turn enables all
Windows printers to work.

Marcel

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Marcel Kilgus]

Claude Mourier 00 wrote:
> Alternative way (rather then writing printer driver obsolete in a
> couple of month) : to provide a way to export documents with all
> attributes and print then with tools like, saiy, OpenOffice ..

The thing Jochen is talking about is not another printer driver but an
interface to the Windows printing system, which in turn enables all
Windows printers to work.

Marcel

[ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Claude Mourier 00]

Last EPSON laser-color 600dpi 4/16 pages/mn SER/USB only costs 500EUR (A4 only, 
without Ethernet card) : the price for a 300dpi b&w in the recent past ! Don't know 
cost for replacement toner :-((

-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
Jérôme Grimbert
Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2004 13:51
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!



Tarquin Mills wrote:
> Jerome Grimbert wrote:
> 
>>Only option so far is to be picky when buying the printer, checking that 
>>there is at least a parallel port (and one that does not need ECP/EPP, 
>>but plain good old parallel port, mono-directional... and no fancy 
>>mandatory cartridge management...)
>>I just like my LX-800 and BJC-600...
> 
> It would be nice with the (Q40, Q60 and) Platinum Card coming out to have 
> the par device changed so that it can used bi-directionally (ECP/EPP).
> 
It would only provide the communication... but you would still miss the 
heavy driver and print engine on the 3.4 GHz P4, and 256 MB of memory...
And most printers now have 'undocumented & classified' code. A nightmare 
to make a driver when you're a third party.

> Postscript looks better and better as time goes on. Laser use par, have
> PCL or postscript and sometimes have Epson emulation.
> 
Postscript, yes. But cheap laser do not have it.
My dream printer would be a Postscript-colour laser printer with 
unexpensive refill, recto-verso and A3-able processing as well as heavy 
paper capable (more than 250g/m²), with a minimal definition of 600 PPI,
lot of memory and silent. Printing on transparent-slide would be a plus...
Alas, I'm afraid I do not have the budget for that... nor the every-day 
use of it either.

Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[François Van Emelen]

Claude Mourier 00 wrote:

Alternative way (rather then writing printer driver obsolete in a couple of month) : to provide a way to export documents with all attributes and print then with tools like, saiy, OpenOffice ..
That would help me a lot.
François Van Emelen
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
SMSQ - Jochen Merz
Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2004 09:59
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!



I agree this would be nice - I have mentioned it previously, but we seem 
to be barking up the wrong tree to some extent when it comes to using 
Windows only printers.  A filter between QPC2 and the Windows printer 
driver is really not of any use to the general QL public, as it will not 
work with original QLs or with the Q40/Q60.


Well, it depends on how you define "general QL public".
I estimate that the number of ACTIVE QL software users is actually
running their software on QPC (well, I know the sales figures,
don't I?) ;-)
And there was no problem, wish and demand for anything but printing 
solutions (for QLs *AND* QPCs, of which the majority was QPC users).

Well, and like you say: I am not aware of masses of current printers 
(and "current" means "several years" which can be used with a QL.
Considering that users want a modern printer which can be used on
various systems, I doubt that a dot-matrix printer (yes, you still
get plenty, very expensive ones from EPSON) is the solution.
Look at how many people use QPC on Laptops - it is quite natural
that they would also like it to print on current colour printers,
or portable inkjets etc.

Jochen

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[SMSQ - Jochen Merz]

OK, I don't know much about Epson printers, I admit, but as to HP 
printers, they
all _still_ understand direct (HPPCL-) commands and you can print plain 
text to
them without a problem from the QL.
I just checked the (German) HP homepage. I have not found
a single printer where the technical datasheet states that
it handles PCLx...
Can it be assumed that all of them do? In case you buy one
and it doesn't anymore - no real reason to complain as it
is not a documented feature anymore.
However, if they all do it - let's hope they continue to
do it... as this will probably be the only solution then.
Regards   Jochen

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Wolfgang Uhlig]

Sorry - they cannot be printed with the small driver utilities which we
have, unless you have specific printers - most modern, low cost printers 
(eg 99% of the EPSON range) will only print graphics !!  They do not 
recognise a
string of plain ASCII text sent to them - this is why we are faced with 
the problem!
OK, I don't know much about Epson printers, I admit, but as to HP 
printers, they
all _still_ understand direct (HPPCL-) commands and you can print plain 
text to
them without a problem from the QL.

Wolfgang

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[SMSQ - Jochen Merz]

Hi Jérôme,

Side-question: is the text87 patch available for Q40 ? (I read about it 
for QPC). I'm lacking text87 in 1024x512 so far...
(And at which price... )
I don't know how many inquiries have been passed on to Marcel
and at which level he decides to invest more time...
I guess that non-QPC users will soon have a second problem
in addition to the printer-language problem: how do I connect
a printer with USB to the Aurora or Q40/Q60?
Only option so far is to be picky when buying the printer, checking that 
there is at least a parallel port (and one that does not need ECP/EPP, 
but plain good old parallel port, mono-directional... and no fancy 
mandatory cartridge management...)
I just like my LX-800 and BJC-600...
Hope that they last for a long time

I would not know what to buy now if my EPSON Stylus Color 900/980
breakes down, or my nice small protable Canon BJC-85.
There is probably nothing "current" available which could replace
them...
Regards   Jochen

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Jérôme Grimbert]

SMSQ - Jochen Merz wrote:

Prove me wrong but most of the "documents" would be a listing here 
and
a small letter there. These can be printed without a problem using 
the
small driver utilities we have for HP and Epson.

Sorry - they cannot be printed with the small driver utilities which 
we have, unless you have specific printers - most modern, low cost 
printers (eg 99% of the EPSON range) will only print graphics !!  They 
do not recognise a string of plain ASCII text sent to them - this is 
why we are faced with the problem!


Exactly this is the problem - and even if some of them are able to
print plain ASCII - this still does not help people with t87 documents
etc ... we're NOT all using PC programs - my manuals are still printed
from text87, and again - the text87patch shows that I'm not the only
one having this problem.
Side-question: is the text87 patch available for Q40 ? (I read about it 
for QPC). I'm lacking text87 in 1024x512 so far...
(And at which price... )


I guess that non-QPC users will soon have a second problem
in addition to the printer-language problem: how do I connect
a printer with USB to the Aurora or Q40/Q60?
Only option so far is to be picky when buying the printer, checking that 
there is at least a parallel port (and one that does not need ECP/EPP, 
but plain good old parallel port, mono-directional... and no fancy 
mandatory cartridge management...)
I just like my LX-800 and BJC-600...

Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[Darren . Branagh]

My "brother in law" works for lexmark (senior sales director) and I asked
him why Parallel has become extinct on "cheap" inkjets - he said ( as far
as he knows) it is because the Parallel interface is copyrighted and owned
by centronics, and royalties must be paid, whereas USB can be adopted for
free - therefore an extra few pence profit in the cheaper range printers by
adopting USB only.

I have found it impossible to find a printer here with parallel for less
than about 200 euro.

Sad really, but there you go.

It seems the real problem will be connecting the printer to your QL
eventually - nevermind wether it works or not.

cheers,

Darren Branagh,
Bank of Ireland - Cards And Loans Business,
Nassau House, 33/35 Nassau Street, Dublin 2. Ireland.
Tel: 01-6798230  Fax: 01-6706813.

BOI Group Data Classification -




   

  SMSQ - Jochen

  Merz To:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
   
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc:  
   
  Sent by: Subject: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: 
[ql-users] RE:   
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!
 
  g.uk 

   

   

  08/03/2004 11:13 

  Please respond   

  to ql-users  

   

   





> Prove me wrong but most of the "documents" would be a listing here
and
> a small letter there. These can be printed without a problem using
the
> small driver utilities we have for HP and Epson.
>
> Sorry - they cannot be printed with the small driver utilities which we
> have, unless you have specific printers - most modern, low cost printers
> (eg 99% of the EPSON range) will only print graphics !!  They do not
> recognise a string of plain ASCII text sent to them - this is why we are
> faced with the problem!

Exactly this is the problem - and even if some of them are able to
print plain ASCII - this still does not help people with t87 documents
etc ... we're NOT all using PC programs - my manuals are still printed
from text87, and again - the text87patch shows that I'm not the only
one having this problem.

Printing is one of the biggest problems, as far as I can gather from
customer emails and phone calls.
You cannot imagine how many people just go out and buy a printer,
and then wonder why QPC does not print anything anymore.
Well, it has been written many times in QL Today and in the newsgroup
etc. - but you just don't find a printer in the media stores anymore
which is useable for us...

There is also another problem: the interface. QPC prints,
fortunately, to printers connected via USB, parallel port and
serial port, PROVIDED they "understand" printing commands.
Well, have a look at current printers and you see the problem:
most of them come with USB only.
There are adaptors USB to parallel and USB to serial, but
the other way round...?
I guess that non-QPC users will soon have a second problem
in addition to the printer-language problem: how do I connect
a printer with USB to the Aurora or Q40/Q60?

Jochen









This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please 
notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this E-mail 
from your system. Thank you.
It is possible for data transmitted by email to be deliberately or
accidentally corrupted or intercepted. For this reason, where the
communication is by email, the Bank of Ireland Group does not accept 
any responsibility for any breach of confidence which may arise 
through the use of this medium.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept 
for the presence of known computer viruses.

  

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[SMSQ - Jochen Merz]

Prove me wrong but most of the "documents" would be a listing here and
a small letter there. These can be printed without a problem using the
small driver utilities we have for HP and Epson.
Sorry - they cannot be printed with the small driver utilities which we 
have, unless you have specific printers - most modern, low cost printers 
(eg 99% of the EPSON range) will only print graphics !!  They do not 
recognise a string of plain ASCII text sent to them - this is why we are 
faced with the problem!
Exactly this is the problem - and even if some of them are able to
print plain ASCII - this still does not help people with t87 documents
etc ... we're NOT all using PC programs - my manuals are still printed
from text87, and again - the text87patch shows that I'm not the only
one having this problem.
Printing is one of the biggest problems, as far as I can gather from 
customer emails and phone calls.
You cannot imagine how many people just go out and buy a printer,
and then wonder why QPC does not print anything anymore.
Well, it has been written many times in QL Today and in the newsgroup
etc. - but you just don't find a printer in the media stores anymore 
which is useable for us...

There is also another problem: the interface. QPC prints,
fortunately, to printers connected via USB, parallel port and
serial port, PROVIDED they "understand" printing commands.
Well, have a look at current printers and you see the problem:
most of them come with USB only.
There are adaptors USB to parallel and USB to serial, but
the other way round...?
I guess that non-QPC users will soon have a second problem
in addition to the printer-language problem: how do I connect
a printer with USB to the Aurora or Q40/Q60?
Jochen

Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £ 1000 to spend!

[RWAPSoftware]

In a message dated 08/03/2004 10:11:40 GMT Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> 
  Heheheee, you might as well tell some of the customers:> alternative 
  way: write it down yourself using a typewriter.>> 
  Jochen>> Claude Mourier 00 wrote:>>> 
  Alternative way (rather then writing printer driver obsolete in a >> 
  couple of month) : to provide a way to export documents with all >> 
  attributes and print then with tools like, saiy, OpenOffice ..I wonder 
  what kind of documents are written on a QL in order to printthem. What 
  could "all attributes" mean? bold, italic and underline??Images? Forget 
  it! Different fonts? Forget it! Layout? Forget it!Prove me wrong but 
  most of the "documents" would be a listing here anda small letter there. 
  These can be printed without a problem using thesmall driver utilities we 
  have for HP and Epson.
Sorry - they cannot be printed with the small driver utilities which we 
have, unless you have specific printers - most modern, low cost printers (eg 99% 
of the EPSON range) will only print graphics !!  They do not recognise a 
string of plain ASCII text sent to them - this is why we are faced with the 
problem!
If people really want to write a state of the art document, 
  they use Windows-or Linux programs anyway, I 
suppose.

 
--Rich 
Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West 
Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at 
URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up 
internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and 
broadband at:URL: 
http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html

Re: [ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[RWAPSoftware]

In a message dated 08/03/2004 02:34:19 GMT Standard Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:> Simon Goodwin mentioned in the last 
  QL Today that there are plenty of> compatible printers out there, as 
  Linux faces a similar problemEither this was not in QL Today or I 
  really have missed something here.
 
Yes you have - what an excellent little publication QL Today is - maybe you 
should read it hee hee !! Vol 8 Iss 5 p36
> - however, I checked the link to the website he 
  mentions> (_www.linuxprinting.org_ (http://www.linuxprinting.org) ) and 
  cannot> find any information on compatible printers - just details of 
  a> Windows like printer driver written for Linux... (now could this 
  be> converted to the QL??)These drivers are integrated into 
  Ghostscript, which needs Postscript asan input (yes, that old 
  saga).Probably one could write a different frontend for the drivers, 
  but Idon't know how difficult that would be (my gut says that I 
  shouldn'ttouch that task with a 10ft long pole). And even then you still 
  need toa) alter existing applications according to the new interface or 
  b)provide a virtual Epson printer or whatever.
Agreed - this would probably be a pain in the butt
> My theory (where are PROGS when you need them) is that the 
  drivers> actually already exist in the main on the QL - in the form of 
  ProWeSs> drivers.ProForma (which really was much ahead of its 
  time) features some driversbut the last one was written ages ago and 
  therefore it will probablyhave the same problems with current 
  printers.
Yes, in part - the last driver was the ESC/P2 driver written by me, which 
supports 720dpi (never did get 1440 dpi to work).
 
However, as all output is sent by ProForma as a graphics dump (only) direct 
to the printer port, this is exactly what Windows does - the problem with most 
modern printers is that they lack the commands to control text sent directly to 
the printer port, not graphics !!
 
As ProForma has a wide range of graphics drivers, including ESC/P, ESC./P2, 
PCL 3 and PCL 4, it should support nearly every modern printer as far as I 
know.  Some work may be needed to produce a driver for PCL 5, although this 
would not be too difficult.
 
--Rich 
Mellor RWAP Services35 Chantry Croft, Kinsley, Pontefract, West 
Yorkshire, WF9 5JHTEL: 01977 610509Visit our website at 
URL:http://www.rwapsoftware.co.ukStuck with ordinary dial up 
internet connection ?? Read our review of internet accelerators and 
broadband at:URL: 
http://www.rwapadventures.com/Services/reviews.html

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Wolfgang Uhlig]

Heheheee, you might as well tell some of the customers:
alternative way: write it down yourself using a typewriter.
Jochen

Claude Mourier 00 wrote:

Alternative way (rather then writing printer driver obsolete in a 
couple of month) : to provide a way to export documents with all 
attributes and print then with tools like, saiy, OpenOffice ..
I wonder what kind of documents are written on a QL in order to print
them. What could "all attributes" mean? bold, italic and underline??
Images? Forget it! Different fonts? Forget it! Layout? Forget it!
Prove me wrong but most of the "documents" would be a listing here and
a small letter there. These can be printed without a problem using the
small driver utilities we have for HP and Epson.
If people really want to write a state of the art document, they use 
Windows-
or Linux programs anyway, I suppose.

Wolfgang

Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Darren . Branagh]

I agreed with Jochen, exporting is pointless unless you already have
something on the QL that you need to convert, and 99% of the time Geoff's
QL2PC does that admirably.

If you have to use OpenOffice on a PC to print QL documents, why not get
rid of the QL altogther and just use OpenOffice to begin with?

Or buy a BIC Pen - much cheaper than an inkjet anyway :-))

cheers.

Darren Branagh,
Bank of Ireland - Cards And Loans Business,
Nassau House, 33/35 Nassau Street, Dublin 2. Ireland.
Tel: 01-6798230  Fax: 01-6706813.

BOI Group Data Classification -




   

  SMSQ - Jochen

  Merz To:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  
   
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc:  
   
  Sent by: Subject: Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] 
£1000 to spend!  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
  g.uk 

   

   

  08/03/2004 09:37 

  Please respond   

  to ql-users  

   

   





Heheheee, you might as well tell some of the customers:
alternative way: write it down yourself using a typewriter.

Jochen

Claude Mourier 00 wrote:

> Alternative way (rather then writing printer driver obsolete in a couple
of month) : to provide a way to export documents with all attributes and
print then with tools like, saiy, OpenOffice ..
>
> -Message d'origine-
> De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
> SMSQ - Jochen Merz
> Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2004 09:59
> À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Objet : Re: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!
>
>
>
>
>>I agree this would be nice - I have mentioned it previously, but we seem
>>to be barking up the wrong tree to some extent when it comes to using
>>Windows only printers.  A filter between QPC2 and the Windows printer
>>driver is really not of any use to the general QL public, as it will not
>>work with original QLs or with the Q40/Q60.
>
>
> Well, it depends on how you define "general QL public".
> I estimate that the number of ACTIVE QL software users is actually
> running their software on QPC (well, I know the sales figures,
> don't I?) ;-)
>
> And there was no problem, wish and demand for anything but printing
> solutions (for QLs *AND* QPCs, of which the majority was QPC users).
>
> Well, and like you say: I am not aware of masses of current printers
> (and "current" means "several years" which can be used with a QL.
> Considering that users want a modern printer which can be used on
> various systems, I doubt that a dot-matrix printer (yes, you still
> get plenty, very expensive ones from EPSON) is the solution.
> Look at how many people use QPC on Laptops - it is quite natural
> that they would also like it to print on current colour printers,
> or portable inkjets etc.
>
> Jochen
>








This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and 
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they   
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please 
notify us immediately at [EMAIL PROTECTED] and delete this E-mail 
from your system. Thank you.
It is possible for data transmitted by email to be deliberately or
accidentally corrupted or intercepted. For this reason, where the
communication is by email, the Bank of Ireland Group does not accept 
any responsibility for any breach of confidence which may arise 
through the use of this medium.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept 
for the presence of known computer viruses.

  

Re: [ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[SMSQ - Jochen Merz]

Heheheee, you might as well tell some of the customers:
alternative way: write it down yourself using a typewriter.
Jochen

Claude Mourier 00 wrote:

Alternative way (rather then writing printer driver obsolete in a couple of month) : to provide a way to export documents with all attributes and print then with tools like, saiy, OpenOffice ..

-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
SMSQ - Jochen Merz
Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2004 09:59
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!



I agree this would be nice - I have mentioned it previously, but we seem 
to be barking up the wrong tree to some extent when it comes to using 
Windows only printers.  A filter between QPC2 and the Windows printer 
driver is really not of any use to the general QL public, as it will not 
work with original QLs or with the Q40/Q60.


Well, it depends on how you define "general QL public".
I estimate that the number of ACTIVE QL software users is actually
running their software on QPC (well, I know the sales figures,
don't I?) ;-)
And there was no problem, wish and demand for anything but printing 
solutions (for QLs *AND* QPCs, of which the majority was QPC users).

Well, and like you say: I am not aware of masses of current printers 
(and "current" means "several years" which can be used with a QL.
Considering that users want a modern printer which can be used on
various systems, I doubt that a dot-matrix printer (yes, you still
get plenty, very expensive ones from EPSON) is the solution.
Look at how many people use QPC on Laptops - it is quite natural
that they would also like it to print on current colour printers,
or portable inkjets etc.

Jochen

[ql-users] RE: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Claude Mourier 00]

Alternative way (rather then writing printer driver obsolete in a couple of month) : 
to provide a way to export documents with all attributes and print then with tools 
like, saiy, OpenOffice ..

-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] la part de
SMSQ - Jochen Merz
Envoyé : lundi 8 mars 2004 09:59
À : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Objet : Re: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!



> I agree this would be nice - I have mentioned it previously, but we seem 
> to be barking up the wrong tree to some extent when it comes to using 
> Windows only printers.  A filter between QPC2 and the Windows printer 
> driver is really not of any use to the general QL public, as it will not 
> work with original QLs or with the Q40/Q60.

Well, it depends on how you define "general QL public".
I estimate that the number of ACTIVE QL software users is actually
running their software on QPC (well, I know the sales figures,
don't I?) ;-)

And there was no problem, wish and demand for anything but printing 
solutions (for QLs *AND* QPCs, of which the majority was QPC users).

Well, and like you say: I am not aware of masses of current printers 
(and "current" means "several years" which can be used with a QL.
Considering that users want a modern printer which can be used on
various systems, I doubt that a dot-matrix printer (yes, you still
get plenty, very expensive ones from EPSON) is the solution.
Look at how many people use QPC on Laptops - it is quite natural
that they would also like it to print on current colour printers,
or portable inkjets etc.

Jochen

[ql-users] Re: [ql-users] £1000 to spend!

[Marcel Kilgus]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Simon Goodwin mentioned in the last QL Today that there are plenty of
> compatible printers out there, as Linux faces a similar problem

Either this was not in QL Today or I really have missed something here.

> - however, I checked the link to the website he mentions
> (_www.linuxprinting.org_ (http://www.linuxprinting.org) ) and cannot
> find any information on compatible printers - just details of a
> Windows like printer driver written for Linux... (now could this be
> converted to the QL??)

These drivers are integrated into Ghostscript, which needs Postscript as
an input (yes, that old saga).

Probably one could write a different frontend for the drivers, but I
don't know how difficult that would be (my gut says that I shouldn't
touch that task with a 10ft long pole). And even then you still need to
a) alter existing applications according to the new interface or b)
provide a virtual Epson printer or whatever.

> My theory (where are PROGS when you need them) is that the drivers
> actually already exist in the main on the QL - in the form of ProWeSs
> drivers.

ProForma (which really was much ahead of its time) features some drivers
but the last one was written ages ago and therefore it will probably
have the same problems with current printers.

Marcel