How can I test whether a printer has true PostScript?

[Julian Vrieslander]

In another thread on comp.periphs.printers, I described how I was
finding it difficult to determine whether a particular monochrome laser
was equipped with a true PostScript Level 3 interpreter (licensed from
Adobe, not emulated). The printer is the Xerox Phaser 3500. The Xerox
web site has documents which are conflicting. There is a product line
brochure which indicates that the 3500 uses a PS emulator. But other
documents show "language support" is "PostScript Level 3" or "Adobe®
PostScript® Level 3". Telephone calls to Xerox were not helpful. I
spoke to several people, including a technician. One had no clue, while
two others said that the printer has true Adobe PS. But none of them
seemed to have a clear understanding of the difference between a printer
that supports PS commands vs one that has a PS interpreter licensed from
Adobe.

It's also possible that Xerox (through its literature and its reps)
might be intentionally obfuscating the issue.

I called Adobe to ask if they have list of printers which use licensed
PS. I was told that they do not. Well, it's a sure bet that this list
exists, but it may not be available to the public.

So is there any way to run a test for this? Is it possible to print a
page with commands that will reveal whether a printer has real or
emulated PS?

 

[Paperino]

"Julian Vrieslander" ha scritto nel messaggio

In another thread on comp.periphs.printers, I described how I was
finding it difficult to determine whether a particular monochrome laser
was equipped with a true PostScript Level 3 interpreter (licensed from
Adobe, not emulated). The printer is the Xerox Phaser 3500. [CUT]
So is there any way to run a test for this? Is it possible to print a
page with commands that will reveal whether a printer has real or
emulated PS?

Does the test page give any clue ?
In many of the printers I've seen, the startup page (or at least the
test page) reports the PS version (and subversion on some), and
I *think* Adobe get it's logo printed on every piece of SW built
around it's code, even on third party's equipment.

Bye, G.

 

[Julian Vrieslander]

"Julian Vrieslander" ha scritto nel messaggio

Does the test page give any clue ?
In many of the printers I've seen, the startup page (or at least the
test page) reports the PS version (and subversion on some), and
I *think* Adobe get it's logo printed on every piece of SW built
around it's code, even on third party's equipment.

Good idea. I am still seeking to locate one of these printers so I can
run some tests. I'll try the test page.

 

[measekite]

READ THE MANUAL

 

[CJT]

In another thread on comp.periphs.printers, I described how I was
finding it difficult to determine whether a particular monochrome laser
was equipped with a true PostScript Level 3 interpreter (licensed from
Adobe, not emulated). The printer is the Xerox Phaser 3500. The Xerox
web site has documents which are conflicting. There is a product line
brochure which indicates that the 3500 uses a PS emulator. But other
documents show "language support" is "PostScript Level 3" or "Adobe®
PostScript® Level 3". Telephone calls to Xerox were not helpful. I
spoke to several people, including a technician. One had no clue, while
two others said that the printer has true Adobe PS. But none of them
seemed to have a clear understanding of the difference between a printer
that supports PS commands vs one that has a PS interpreter licensed from
Adobe.

It's also possible that Xerox (through its literature and its reps)
might be intentionally obfuscating the issue.

I called Adobe to ask if they have list of printers which use licensed
PS. I was told that they do not. Well, it's a sure bet that this list
exists, but it may not be available to the public.

They might not be willing to divulge the list, but couldn't/wouldn't
they tell you about that particular printer?

 

[Julian Vrieslander]

READ THE MANUAL

Wotta genius. I had already downloaded and searched the user guide,
thank you very much. It lists PostScript as a supported language, but
does not state whether the interpreter code is licensed from Adobe, or
is based on emulation.

 

[Helge Blischke]

Wotta genius. I had already downloaded and searched the user guide,
thank you very much. It lists PostScript as a supported language, but
does not state whether the interpreter code is licensed from Adobe, or
is based on emulation.

If the printer (provided it is the original as delivered from Xerox) has the Adobe PostScript
logo attached somewhere or shows it in some menu, it *is* an Adobe RIP. Unauthorized use of this
logo will be usually sued by Adboe immediately.

Helge

 

[Roy Bethel]

I have seen Xerox assertments on their web site that claim as a benefit that
their printer has true Adobe PS 3 not an emulation. My question is does it
really matter? I have a HP 2100 with HP's PS emulation. I have never had a
reason to complain. Along the same lines, I have never seen a difference
between HP's PS printer driver and Adobes' using the HP 2100 *.ppd. However,
I admit that I probably have not looked hard enough.


message
news:julianvREMOVE_THIS_PART-AF71B4.14223103112005@gnus01.u.washington.edu...

 

[Helge Blischke]

I have seen Xerox assertments on their web site that claim as a benefit that
their printer has true Adobe PS 3 not an emulation. My question is does it
really matter? I have a HP 2100 with HP's PS emulation. I have never had a
reason to complain. Along the same lines, I have never seen a difference
between HP's PS printer driver and Adobes' using the HP 2100 *.ppd. However,
I admit that I probably have not looked hard enough.

Well, I've never seen a PostScript RIP that didn't show at least one weird bug. But you may
rely on that every Adobe licensed RIP - as far as my experience shows - exhibits the same but,
whereas RIPs from different other vendors usually have different bugs.

But in everyday life, it should not matter if it is an Adobe RIP or not. But you should
check the version, as the major version number (the part preceding the dot) tells you
what additional features are (or should be) built in or not.

Helge

 

[Paul Anderson]

In another thread on comp.periphs.printers, I described how I was
finding it difficult to determine whether a particular monochrome
laser was equipped with a true PostScript Level 3 interpreter
(licensed from Adobe, not emulated).

It's difficult to impossible to determine from the printer whether it
has Adobe PostScript or an emulation. Companies that provide
PostScript emulation often make their version and build date identical
with the Adobe version.

Looking at the printer or documentation for an Adobe logo might indeed
be the best way.

Paul

 

[Reuti]

In another thread on comp.periphs.printers, I described how I was
finding it difficult to determine whether a particular monochrome laser
was equipped with a true PostScript Level 3 interpreter (licensed from
Adobe, not emulated). The printer is the Xerox Phaser 3500. The Xerox
web site has documents which are conflicting. There is a product line
brochure which indicates that the 3500 uses a PS emulator. But other
documents show "language support" is "PostScript Level 3" or "Adobe®
PostScript® Level 3". Telephone calls to Xerox were not helpful. I
spoke to several people, including a technician. One had no clue, while
two others said that the printer has true Adobe PS. But none of them
seemed to have a clear understanding of the difference between a printer
that supports PS commands vs one that has a PS interpreter licensed from
Adobe.

What about opening the printer and have a look at the ROM chips? Is
there any "(c) Adobe" on it? Sometimes the PostScript interpreter is on
a (SO-)DIMM near any RAM expansion, and so it's much easier than really
opening the printer. - Reuti

 

[Julian Vrieslander]

What about opening the printer and have a look at the ROM chips? Is
there any "(c) Adobe" on it? Sometimes the PostScript interpreter is on
a (SO-)DIMM near any RAM expansion, and so it's much easier than really
opening the printer.

Thanks to everyone who replied.

I finally found someone on the campus here who has a Xerox Phaser 3500
and who is willing to let me print some test pages. But I don't know if
he would be comfortable with a request to pull the printer open so I
could inspect the chips.

In view of the other comments in this thread, it looks like the best I
can do is to look for Adobe logos and trademarks on the test pages, and
to print some sample files similar to the kinds I will frequently print.
But it's certainly possible that if there are bugs in the PS interpreter
(whether it was written by Adobe or some other company), I may not
discover them until after I have bought the printer and used it for
months.

The printer that I am replacing (a 12-year-old LaserWriter Pro 600, with
Adobe PS 2) almost never failed to produce a correct output, on even the
most complex PDFs and PS files. But, by today's standards, it was
glacially slow.

 

[janus.astrolabe]

I have it in my mind that there is no such thing as pure "Adobe" PS on
any printer. Different printers have different computer chips with
different capabilities. The printer manufacturer may start with the
Adobe interpreter, but they necessarily have to modify it to support
their chip set and the printer's capability (input feeds of various
kinds, resolution, interaction with the printer's imaging process,
statement limit values, etc.). Most of them work quite well but it
isn't unusual to find even long established printer PS emulators with
bugs. In my case, I found a problem drawing an arc with a very large
radius on a printer I have used for several years. So it goes.

Jim

 

[Aandi Inston]

I have it in my mind that there is no such thing as pure "Adobe" PS on
any printer. Different printers have different computer chips with
different capabilities. The printer manufacturer may start with the
Adobe interpreter, but they necessarily have to modify it to support
their chip set and the printer's capability (input feeds of various
kinds, resolution, interaction with the printer's imaging process,
statement limit values, etc.).

This is true, but what Adobe provide is a core interpreter, plus the
ability to customise certain things (including the things you
describe). The core interpreter isn't modifiable, and isn't source
code, so most PostScript functionality is the same between each Adobe
interpreter (of the same version).

 

[LEE Sau Dan]

Aandi> This is true, but what Adobe provide is a core interpreter,
Aandi> plus the ability to customise certain things (including the
Aandi> things you describe). The core interpreter isn't
Aandi> modifiable, and isn't source code, so most PostScript
Aandi> functionality is the same between each Adobe interpreter
Aandi> (of the same version).

Even if the source is available to the printer manufacturers, it is
not open source. So, the manufacturers must have licensed it from
Adobe. And Adobe collects the licensing fee. It's impossible that
Adobe doesn't have a list of its Postscript licensees.

 

[Chapman Flack]

It's difficult to impossible to determine from the printer whether it
has Adobe PostScript or an emulation. Companies that provide
PostScript emulation often make their version and build date identical
with the Adobe version.

When I type executive on my Xerox Phaser 750 (which is documented
as having Adobe PS) it prints the following banner:

PostScript(r) Version 3010.108
(c) Copyright 1984-1999 Adobe Systems Incorporated.
Typefaces (c) Copyright 1981 Linotype-Hell AG and/or its subsidiaries.
All Rights Reserved.
PS>

In your experience, do clone interpreters also identify themselves
as PostScript(r) with an Adobe Systems Incorporated copyright?
I'd think Adobe would object to that.

-Chap

 

[Christopher Story]

Have you tried typing "executive" to get the PS prompt on the printer?

HP:

Copyright (c) Hewlett-Packard Company, 1997
Version 3010.107
PS>

Ricoh:

PostScript(r) Version 3015.102
(c) Copyright 1984-2001 Adobe Systems Incorporated
Typefaces (c) Copyright 1981 Linotype-Hell AG and/or its subsidiaries.
All Rights Reserved.
PS>

I would also be careful regarding assuming all true Adobe PS printers are
equal.. Though it is true that the Core code set is Asobe, the machine
integration code is usually the source of bugs and anomolies...

Chris

 

[Julian Vrieslander]

Have you tried typing "executive" to get the PS prompt on the printer?

Thanks for the reply, Christopher. I could use a bit more elaboration,
since I am not a PS programmer.

How do I type a command to the printer's PS interpreter? Do I need to
telnet to its IP address? Do I need to ftp a file? Or is there another
application that is used for this? When it comes to printers, my
experience is limited to sending documents through applications for
printing.

Someone volunteered to let me test their Xerox Phaser 3500 next week.
But I will only have a few minutes to do this, probably with my Mac
PowerBook (running OS X) connected via an ethernet hookup. I know how
to run simple commands from the unix command line.

 

[Chapman Flack]

How do I type a command to the printer's PS interpreter? Do I need to
telnet to its IP address? Do I need to ftp a file? Or is there another

Telnet should work. You want to connect to the printer's AppSocket
port,
probably 9100:

$ telnet printer.ip.ad.dress 9100

I prefer kermit to telnet for that purpose because telnet's protocol,
though it doesn't
really confuse the interpreter, tends to get you doubled prompts and
such, where
kermit can easily be told to open a raw socket with no extra protocol.
But for just
connecting long enough to type executive telnet won't be annoying.

-Chap

 

[LEE Sau Dan]

Chapman> $ telnet printer.ip.ad.dress 9100

Chapman> I prefer kermit to telnet for that purpose because
Chapman> telnet's protocol, though it doesn't really confuse the
Chapman> interpreter, tends to get you doubled prompts and such,
Chapman> where kermit can easily be told to open a raw socket with
Chapman> no extra protocol.

You mean kermit uses a protocol other than TCP? And it'd be a
different protocol being spoken on the wire when you use kermit
instead of telnet to connect to the printer's port 9100?


Chapman> But for just connecting long enough to type executive
Chapman> telnet won't be annoying.

Or you mean just the telnet client bundled with some OS? I've been
using the telnet client on Linux and Solaris for that purpose, and
never got doubled prompts.