Talk:LaserWriter

Intro date

I don't know the exact introduction date, but the price list I have from early 1986 shows it as "new". I think it's likely that it came out in late 1985, but I'm not positive. Elf | Talk 15:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article mention the actual manufacturer of the printer? As I recall, Laserwriters were actually based on a Canon print engine, and came out of Canon's plant, but I won't put that in the article without confirmation - memory is a tricky thing. Tannin 12:27, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...yeah, I think the original Laserwriter was a re-branded Canon LBP-8 marking engine.

The line "Much of the cost was due to the LaserWriter's support for the Adobe PostScript, a fully complete and complex printer control interface." below the second paragraph of the first subsection seems redundant and out of place. A.P. Hagler 01:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I deleted that line. I think it's a little better now. Hags2k 00:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

68010

I believe the LaserWriter actually used a 68010 CPU. Tempshill 04:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No, it was a 68000. tooki 20:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

...

Does someone the exact amount of RAM in the original Laserwriter? I wrote 512KB, but I might be thinking of the Laserwriter Plus...

The Laserwriter had 512K workspace RAM and a 1 megabyte frame buffer. MikeGodwin (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Canon Print Engine

The print engine itself was a Canon LBP-CX Engine [1]. It's worth noting that the LaserJet shared the same print engine. The LaserWriter II and the LaserJet II also shared an engine. In these printers, major components like the fuser, scanner, and power supply are actually interchangable. This trend continued for years, the LaserWriter 4 and LaserJet 4 were powered by the LBP-PX engine. I'm an HP LaserJet and Linux user, so I don't know how long the LaserWriter existed, or for how long they used Canon technology. www,fixyourownprinter.com is an excellent cross reference resource though, so it might make an interesting research project.

Peace out my McFriends

--Uncle Bungle 04:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It's taken eight years for this information to appear in the article. I surmise that Apple fans are upset that their printers are essentially rebadged Canons. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What does this mean?

The article currently says:

Unlike HP's PCL and other early printer control languages, PostScript is a complete interpreted page description language

But the PCL page that this links to says that:

PCL is a page description language (PDL) developed by Hewlett-Packard

So what does the sentence here mean? Is PCL not interpreted? Is it not "complete"? I don't understand what point it's trying to make by contrasting PS with PCL. I'll grant that PS is probably a better language, but that's not what the article is saying here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.11.50 (talk) 06:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

it probably means that PS is a turing complete programming language while PCL isn't.

Questionable citations

Some of the citations on how "revolutionary" the printer is are from a book printed by Adobe. The Adobe Press is not a reliable source for evaluating the quality or value of their own products. --208.54.5.76 (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Merges

The various pages on the individual printers were all listed by another editor for Proposed Deletion, with the basic facts merged here. Because some of them were too weak to stand on their own without extensive further work (none of them had references to the relevant review articles in the various specialist magazines), and because we generally do not make individual pages for product models even if can be theoretically justified by the GNG, I redirected them all here ; after a merge, redirect required to maintain attribution. However, it seems only the most basic facts were merged. I don't think the articles contained much inappropriate detail, and more of the contents should be merged--most of it in the text, but some possibly in a table. fortunately, the original information is in the edit history of the redirects. I'd do it right now but there are too many product articles I'm trying to do similar basic rescues at the moment. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Embedded Fonts

For historical purposes, is there any desire to include a list of the LaserWriter's embedded fonts, as well as those embedded with later LWs? I know the LaserWriter Plus had about a dozen more. 2602:306:CFCA:B540:E11C:3134:D73D:1ABA (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LaserWriter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724185007/http://www.fixyourownprinter.com/reference/pcr/engine/1311 to http://www.fixyourownprinter.com/reference/pcr/engine/1311

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)