Coffeehouse Thread

13 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

A general computer question...

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    sysrpl

    Why hasn't any company ever implemented a standard printer protocol which can be transported over tcp/ip? Such as, you never need to install another printer driver, you just point your device to an IP:PORT, provide an optional username/password, and just print (i.e. you don't have to worry about installing or having the correct printer drivers).

     

    I know postscript can be used to describe what is being printed, but what I am talking about is a common protocol which if implemented, could be used to communicate both printing contents, and number of pages, which pages, collaction, and more? It would be as if printer makers should get together and hash out such a protocol so the rest of us never have to fret with setting up a printer on a computer again.

  • User profile image
    ManipUni
  • User profile image
    davewill

    Wouldn't that request be similar to asking any other group of hardware vendors the same?  What if every video card maker had to do that?  What would it do to the innovation of the vendors?

  • User profile image
    JoshRoss

    davewill said:

    Wouldn't that request be similar to asking any other group of hardware vendors the same?  What if every video card maker had to do that?  What would it do to the innovation of the vendors?

    I don't see the difference in asking video card vendors to supply DirectX compatable drivers and asking printer vendors to supplier PPDs for their printers.

     

    -Josh

  • User profile image
    kettch

    davewill said:

    Wouldn't that request be similar to asking any other group of hardware vendors the same?  What if every video card maker had to do that?  What would it do to the innovation of the vendors?

    I can give video card manufacturers a pass because they need to run so close to the metal. However, I would love nothing more than to get the printer manufacturers out of the software business. I can't remember the last time that I didn't have trouble with some crappy software installed by HP or some other printer maker. They are slow, buggy, take hours to install, and provide dubious benefit over the default drivers. I suppose that the only thing that they might provide is two-way communication with the printer. Being able to get back information on paper and ink status is useful.

     

    It seems like there should be some way to make them easier to interface with. Seriously, the things have all kinds of processing power now. They have embedded operating systems even. You'd think it would be fairly simple to implement a basic protocol on top of tcp/ip. It's not going to happen though. Even though it would be cheaper and easier, nobody would ever go for it.

     

    I've given up on inkjet printers in general. I just keep around a small business class laser printer that gets it's drivers from Windows Update.

  • User profile image
    DCMonkey
  • User profile image
    Bass
  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Bass said:
    DCMonkey said:
    *snip*

    Beat me to it.

    Same

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    davewill said:

    Wouldn't that request be similar to asking any other group of hardware vendors the same?  What if every video card maker had to do that?  What would it do to the innovation of the vendors?

    It has been done:

     

    http://www.opengl.org/

     

    OpenGL has this nitfy feature that allows graphics card manufacturers to make their own extensions to the API and expose them to people using the API. This is in contrast to DirectX, which specifies exactly what graphics cards can do and what they cannot. If you want to do something different, you will need to go outside of the API by either running things on the CPU or reinventing the wheel by doing stuff with GPGU.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Shining Arcanine said:
    davewill said:
    *snip*

    It has been done:

     

    http://www.opengl.org/

     

    OpenGL has this nitfy feature that allows graphics card manufacturers to make their own extensions to the API and expose them to people using the API. This is in contrast to DirectX, which specifies exactly what graphics cards can do and what they cannot. If you want to do something different, you will need to go outside of the API by either running things on the CPU or reinventing the wheel by doing stuff with GPGU.

    Shining Arcanine said:
    OpenGL has this nitfy feature that allows graphics card manufacturers to make their own extensions to the API and expose them to people using the API

    Um, yes, a "nifty" feature. And not at all a stupid and annoying limitation which means that you have to write several different bits of code doing roughly the same thing to do anything useful on more than one graphics card. Nope, it's a feature don't you know. Genius.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    AndyC said:
    Shining Arcanine said:
    *snip*

    Um, yes, a "nifty" feature. And not at all a stupid and annoying limitation which means that you have to write several different bits of code doing roughly the same thing to do anything useful on more than one graphics card. Nope, it's a feature don't you know. Genius.

    It is better than predefining the entire feature set in advance and saying that people who wants improvements on it cannot have them with the stipulation that any changes to the specification will require the entire user base to buy a new operating system.

  • User profile image
    AndyC

    Shining Arcanine said:
    AndyC said:
    *snip*

    It is better than predefining the entire feature set in advance and saying that people who wants improvements on it cannot have them with the stipulation that any changes to the specification will require the entire user base to buy a new operating system.

    If you can't see the epic fail in having a hardware abstraction API that is different depending upon what hardware you have, then there really is no hope for you.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    AndyC said:
    Shining Arcanine said:
    *snip*

    If you can't see the epic fail in having a hardware abstraction API that is different depending upon what hardware you have, then there really is no hope for you.

    As far as I know, the core API is the same regardless of what hardware you have. Only the extensions are different. They exist for people's convenience; nothing forces people to use them.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.