Digital BW, The Print

Andrew Rodney wrote:

 >on 9/15/02 5:07 PM, Editor P.O.V. Image Service at editor@...
 >wrote:
 >
 >
 >
 >>Since Andrew Rodney has said that EPSON IS saving money by NOT
 >>DISTRIBUTING the grey-balancer in the US , that they can  then use for
 >>better drivers, I think those two features are conspicuous in their
 >>absence...  Their existence in the driver for my old ALPs make it much
 >>more useful than it otherwise might be..
 >>
 >>
 >
 >Using what software? Spot colors in Photoshop is a cruel joke at best.
 >
 >
Illustrator or Quark to start with?

Canvas

CorelDraw

need we go on?

And you completely ignored the OVERLAY option...

 >
 >
 >>Obviously, working Jaguar drivers would be nice too.. ;-)
 >>
 >>
 >
 >My 2200 is running fine...
 >
 >
 >
Well, support for older hardware would be a nice idea... Hell, if you
can't use your 1280 (Still sold by EPSON mind you)  with full Jaguar
functionality, just buy a 2200... Yeah, that's the ticket...

Or perhaps CUPS is good enough...  Of course, EPSON has nothing to do
with CUPS...

You also wholly ignored my point about single color purges..

If you choose to answer don't act like a White House spin doctor and
make believe you are answering all questions fully while answering only
those you have answers for that make you come off positively.

Henry Wilhelm learned something awhile back... I hold people 100%
publicly and permanently accountable for representations they make (like
his NEW public data, promised 2 years ago -- that never got here)...  If
the promises (explicit or implicit)  aren't kept,  their reputations
deserve to take the hits for it...

Funny Andrew, you were quick to make assertions that the saved money
would go into better drivers... any particular reason you seem to be
backing away from the certitude of your earlier statements?  Know
something we don't about what printers EPSON will NOT be supporting in
updated drivers, perhaps?

EPSON apparently got Wilhelm to concede keeping data unpublished..  They
refused to update drivers to give us better inks (alleging it would
confuse end-users), but were willing to do so for profits money when
they added a Chinese ink source.  They have a track record of making
choices to maximize profits  at the expense of any other consideration
(chipping flawed inksets, and later suing third party cartridge
manufacturers, etc.)  I'm not indicting you in any way, I just think you
should accept the fact that your blue ribbon panel has given them the
cover to save costs today and like Wimpy in the old Popeye cartoons
"while promising us better product as a DIRECT result in future"...  If
they follow through they'd be much more altruistic than is the corporate
  norm.. and in your own heart I think you recognize that reality...

Yes they make some great products, yes I use them... That in no way
means I should or will ignore ways in which they blow smoke at, mislead,
or abuse end-users..

Keith



</div>