Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uw-beaver
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!laser-lovers
From: laser-lovers@uw-beaver
Newsgroups: fa.laser-lovers
Subject: LN01/LN01S and LN03
Message-ID: <1392@uw-beaver>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 22:15:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1392
Posted: Mon Jul 15 22:15:16 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 04:21:48 EDT
Sender: daemon@uw-beaver
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 21

From: Dave Cohrs 

When we had a vanilla LN01, we couldn't download bitmaps to it.  As far
as fonts are concerned, they are the same format as the Xerox 2700
fonts.  Last I heard, DEC was being rather opaque concerning the
format of the fonts.  I have a number of programs for dealing with
fonts as I had to do a lot of work on them to make them look decent
(DEC's fonts for the LN01/LN01S are really bad, heck the fonts in ROM
look bad too -- both are much to light, so light in fact that our
graduate school was rejecting theses printed on the LN01), however,
they run on 4.2 systems, not VMS.

As long as we're on the topic of the LN01 and LN03, could someone with
experience with both post comments concerning reliability (please, the
LN03 can't be *less* reliable than the LN01), print quality and general
usefulness (can the LN03 print bitmaps?).

--
Dave Cohrs
...!{allegra,harvard,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!dave
dave@wisc-romano.arpa