Seeing all the rage against non-PS printing here recently, I’m wondering how
PCL compares? Is it better/worse/equal to PostScript? Is there any reason to
prefer one over the other?
—Tom
___
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.
Quoting wirelessd...@gmail.com (wirelessd...@gmail.com):
> Seeing all the rage against non-PS printing here recently, I’m
> wondering how PCL compares? Is it better/worse/equal to PostScript? Is
> there any reason to prefer one over the other?
PCL printing is generally faster. In vague outline,
Rick Moen wrote:
> Quoting wirelessd...@gmail.com (wirelessd...@gmail.com):
>
>> Seeing all the rage against non-PS printing here recently, I’m
>> wondering how PCL compares? Is it better/worse/equal to PostScript? Is
>> there any reason to prefer one over the other?
>
> PCL printing is general
Postscript's imaging model is still the archetype, I look in the Red Book
or its descendents whenever I have to code 2-D imaging. They even explain
the matrix well. If you want something that *isn't* an interpretive
language, real PostScript interpreters also will print directly from PDF.
The downs
Thanks for the replies. I'm currently using the default ColorMFP PPD
driver for a Toshiba e-Studio 3555C printer/copier, and it has a habit
of taking 5+ minutes to print a single page. Would I get better
results with using a generic PS or PCL driver? What is the
recommended generic driver for PS
On 20/03/18 14:27, Tom wrote:
Thanks for the replies. I'm currently using the default ColorMFP PPD
driver for a Toshiba e-Studio 3555C printer/copier, and it has a habit
of taking 5+ minutes to print a single page. Would I get better
results with using a generic PS or PCL driver? What is the
r
