Facebook
Google
GitHub
Linkedin
Thought for the day...
- Thread starter Wendy
- Start date
Why create a program to deliberately do stuff like that -- not so much creating actual/obvious errors, but the first example where it's just not doing things in what WE would naturally assume is a rational order?
Reminds me of the old HP pen plotters that would draw part of a letter, go away somewhere else, and come back and finish the letter later. It made them interesting to watch just to see these quirks and to try to figure out why it might have done it. Lots of people noticed the behavior, but I don't recall anyone getting angry or emotionally distressed over it.
ASIDE: The behavior was because the plotter drivers were attempting to do optimization of a number of factors, from minimizing pen changes to combining common vertical and horizontal motions to avoiding long diagonal moves. It's actually an example of solving the Traveling Salesman problem in near-real-time with very limited processing power. You use heuristics to do the best you can, knowing that you aren't going to do a perfect job and that you risk doing a worse job from time to time.
Hey, don't forget the "logic seeking" dot matrix printers that became popular in the 80s! They were soooo fast compared to their predecessors.
Not sure what a "logic seeking" dot matrix printer was or how it differed from the dot matrix printers I used back then. On mine, the carriage direction was unidirectional, so it couldn't reverse the paper direction. The printhead only moved between the lateral extents of each line, usually, but not always, printing in opposite directions on each line. I don't know how that could have been sped up much, unless the carriage feed could be reversed.
AI Overview
Logic-seeking is an innovation in dot-matrix printing that dramatically improved speed by minimizing wasted movement of the print head
. Instead of returning the print head to the far-left side of the paper after every printed line, a printer with logic-seeking determines the most efficient path for the next line, often printing backward from right to left.
The challenge: Slow, unidirectional printing
Early dot-matrix printers were inherently slow. The print head, which struck an ink-soaked ribbon to create dots on the page, would move from left to right to print a line of text. The process was:
- Print a line of text.
- Perform a carriage return, during which the print head would rapidly traverse all the way back to the left margin.
- Advance the paper to the next line.
- Repeat the left-to-right printing process.
The solution: Logic-seeking
- Intelligent control: The development of more advanced printer control systems and microprocessors allowed the printer to analyze the text in its buffer, or internal memory, before printing a new line.
- Predictive movement: The printer's logic would "seek" the most efficient route. If the next line of text was short or started near the right margin, the printer would simply reverse direction and begin printing from right to left.
- Speed and efficiency: By eliminating unnecessary movement, logic-seeking reduced wear and tear on the printer and, most importantly, significantly increased print speed and throughput.
- A major advancement: While the specific date of the first logic-seeking printer is unknown, the technology was commercially popularized with the Epson MX-80.
- Market success: Released in 1980, the MX-80 was one of the first printers to feature bidirectional printing with logic-seeking. This innovation, combined with its high print precision and competitive price, made it a market success and the de facto standard for dot-matrix printers for years to come.
The implementation of logic-seeking in dot-matrix printers highlights a major period of innovation in the printing industry. As competitors tried to keep pace with the Epson MX-80, bi-directional, logic-seeking printing became a standard feature. This innovation, along with higher pin counts for better print quality, made dot-matrix printers the go-to printing solution for most of the 1980s.
My guess is then that every dot matrix printer I ever encountered was "logic seeking". It strikes me that optimizing these printers was a much simpler task than doing the earlier pen plotters because their movements were so much more constrained.
One of the memories that has always stuck with me was that in the early 1980s, it was recommended that you print your resumes and scholarship-related materials on a dot matrix printer instead of using a type writer, even though the type-written document was always much more professional, because the dot matrix printed version demonstrated that you were conversant with modern technology. It wasn't too many years later that using a dot matrix printer for these things was considered a death knell because it demonstrated that you weren't conversant with modern technology. I think that was the first time that it was driven home how much form is valued over substance.
One of the memories that has always stuck with me was that in the early 1980s, it was recommended that you print your resumes and scholarship-related materials on a dot matrix printer instead of using a type writer, even though the type-written document was always much more professional, because the dot matrix printed version demonstrated that you were conversant with modern technology. It wasn't too many years later that using a dot matrix printer for these things was considered a death knell because it demonstrated that you weren't conversant with modern technology. I think that was the first time that it was driven home how much form is valued over substance.
The *big* complaint re the first laser printers was that every original was a "copy" (i.e. they used the same xerographic engine that was used to make copies of typewritten documents).
The speed-up was amazing to us at the time. We take for granted such things today.
I sure never heard any complaints along those lines.
I remember the debate clearly (and my own surprise when I saw my first laser printed page) . I will attempt to find a reference, but it is difficult to keyword search for 80s news articles regarding tech that is still widely in use today.
I might spend my evening perusing pdfs of old computer magazines. Wish me luck.
This is what I get from Grok:
In the 1980s, as laser printers emerged as a new technology, there was indeed discussion about their output resembling photocopies, primarily due to the shared electrophotographic process with photocopiers. Both technologies used toner fused onto paper, leading to visual similarities that sparked debate about whether laser-printed documents could be distinguished as originals or dismissed as mere copies. This perception was significant in professional and legal contexts, where the authenticity or presentation of documents mattered.
The electrophotographic process, rooted in xerography, was central to both photocopiers and laser printers. From the 1950s to the 1980s, photocopiers reflected light off an original document onto a charged drum to create a copy, while laser printers used digital data to control a laser that exposed the drum, producing sharper, more precise output. Despite this difference, the toner-based results looked similar, especially compared to traditional offset printing or typewritten documents, which were considered higher quality at the time. Laser printers, introduced commercially in the late 1970s (e.g., Xerox 9700 in 1977, HP 2680A in 1980, and HP LaserJet in 1984), were initially expensive and primarily used in offices, reinforcing their association with photocopiers.
The debate often centered on visual quality and authenticity. Early laser printers, while revolutionary for their speed and clarity, produced text with line quality similar to photocopiers, though improved over time. Images printed via laser showed regular dot patterns (halftones), unlike the random or absent dot patterns of pre-laser photocopiers, which could distinguish them under close inspection. However, to the naked eye, the outputs were often indistinguishable, leading to perceptions that laser prints lacked the "originality" of traditional printing methods. This was particularly relevant in the context of desktop publishing, which exploded in the mid-1980s with tools like the Apple LaserWriter and Aldus PageMaker. The ability to produce professional-looking documents in-house elicited "oohs and ahs" but also raised questions about whether these documents were merely glorified copies.
No specific records of formal debates (e.g., in academic, legal, or industry settings) explicitly frame laser prints as "looking too much like copies" in the 1980s. However, the technological overlap and visual similarity fueled informal discussions, particularly as laser printers disrupted traditional printing. For instance, a 1984 episode of Computer Chronicles highlighted the rapid evolution of printer technology, including laser printers, and noted their high clarity but didn’t directly address the copy-like perception. Similarly, discussions on platforms like the Digital Photography Review forum suggest that prints from the 1980s (often photocopies or early laser prints) were sometimes seen as less vibrant than modern inkjet prints, hinting at retrospective comparisons that may echo the 1980s sentiment.
The concern about laser prints resembling copies also tied into practical issues, such as the use of tracking dots in color laser printers, developed by Xerox and Canon in the mid-1980s to combat counterfeiting. These tiny yellow dots, encoding printer serial numbers and timestamps, made laser prints traceable, further blurring the line between originals and copies in legal contexts. This could have amplified perceptions that laser prints were akin to photocopies, especially in sensitive applications.
Critically, the "looks like a copy" critique may reflect resistance to new technology challenging established norms. Laser printers democratized high-quality printing, but their toner-based output was initially seen as less prestigious than offset printing or typewritten originals. Over time, as laser printers became more affordable and their output improved, this perception faded. By the late 1980s and 1990s, laser printers were celebrated for enabling desktop publishing, with the HP LaserJet and Apple LaserWriter setting new standards.
In summary, while no single source pinpoints a formal 1980s debate explicitly stating "laser printed pages looked too much like copies," the technological and visual similarities between laser printers and photocopiers, coupled with their shared electrophotographic roots, likely fueled such perceptions. These discussions were likely informal, tied to the transition from traditional printing to digital, and reflected in the broader context of desktop publishing’s rise and concerns about document authenticity.
In the 1980s, as laser printers emerged as a new technology, there was indeed discussion about their output resembling photocopies, primarily due to the shared electrophotographic process with photocopiers. Both technologies used toner fused onto paper, leading to visual similarities that sparked debate about whether laser-printed documents could be distinguished as originals or dismissed as mere copies. This perception was significant in professional and legal contexts, where the authenticity or presentation of documents mattered.
The electrophotographic process, rooted in xerography, was central to both photocopiers and laser printers. From the 1950s to the 1980s, photocopiers reflected light off an original document onto a charged drum to create a copy, while laser printers used digital data to control a laser that exposed the drum, producing sharper, more precise output. Despite this difference, the toner-based results looked similar, especially compared to traditional offset printing or typewritten documents, which were considered higher quality at the time. Laser printers, introduced commercially in the late 1970s (e.g., Xerox 9700 in 1977, HP 2680A in 1980, and HP LaserJet in 1984), were initially expensive and primarily used in offices, reinforcing their association with photocopiers.
The debate often centered on visual quality and authenticity. Early laser printers, while revolutionary for their speed and clarity, produced text with line quality similar to photocopiers, though improved over time. Images printed via laser showed regular dot patterns (halftones), unlike the random or absent dot patterns of pre-laser photocopiers, which could distinguish them under close inspection. However, to the naked eye, the outputs were often indistinguishable, leading to perceptions that laser prints lacked the "originality" of traditional printing methods. This was particularly relevant in the context of desktop publishing, which exploded in the mid-1980s with tools like the Apple LaserWriter and Aldus PageMaker. The ability to produce professional-looking documents in-house elicited "oohs and ahs" but also raised questions about whether these documents were merely glorified copies.
No specific records of formal debates (e.g., in academic, legal, or industry settings) explicitly frame laser prints as "looking too much like copies" in the 1980s. However, the technological overlap and visual similarity fueled informal discussions, particularly as laser printers disrupted traditional printing. For instance, a 1984 episode of Computer Chronicles highlighted the rapid evolution of printer technology, including laser printers, and noted their high clarity but didn’t directly address the copy-like perception. Similarly, discussions on platforms like the Digital Photography Review forum suggest that prints from the 1980s (often photocopies or early laser prints) were sometimes seen as less vibrant than modern inkjet prints, hinting at retrospective comparisons that may echo the 1980s sentiment.
The concern about laser prints resembling copies also tied into practical issues, such as the use of tracking dots in color laser printers, developed by Xerox and Canon in the mid-1980s to combat counterfeiting. These tiny yellow dots, encoding printer serial numbers and timestamps, made laser prints traceable, further blurring the line between originals and copies in legal contexts. This could have amplified perceptions that laser prints were akin to photocopies, especially in sensitive applications.
Critically, the "looks like a copy" critique may reflect resistance to new technology challenging established norms. Laser printers democratized high-quality printing, but their toner-based output was initially seen as less prestigious than offset printing or typewritten originals. Over time, as laser printers became more affordable and their output improved, this perception faded. By the late 1980s and 1990s, laser printers were celebrated for enabling desktop publishing, with the HP LaserJet and Apple LaserWriter setting new standards.
In summary, while no single source pinpoints a formal 1980s debate explicitly stating "laser printed pages looked too much like copies," the technological and visual similarities between laser printers and photocopiers, coupled with their shared electrophotographic roots, likely fueled such perceptions. These discussions were likely informal, tied to the transition from traditional printing to digital, and reflected in the broader context of desktop publishing’s rise and concerns about document authenticity.
See my post above. I think this is too "on the nose" to be a hallucination, especially since it exactly coincides with my recollection. .
Then again, there's also the risk of you being the one who's hallucinating ...
@WBahn had me wondering if I made it all up, and if so, perhaps Grok was probing my head.Then again, there's also the risk of you being the one who's hallucinating ...
Though notice that it pointed out more than once that it couldn't find an actual source supporting the claim that they looked too much like copies.
Some of the points it made were interesting, but the fact that, more than once, it phrased its output as something being "likely" discussed "informally" raises questions about whether it is making it up.
If you were inclined to vet it, I'd recommend trying to get it to give up what sources it was drawing upon and looking at those to see what parts, and to what degree, they really do support the response provided.
I've been quite impressed by what Copilot has been able to dredge up and would say that most of it has been pretty accurate. But I've also found a number of times when what it reported seemed perfectly reasonable and in line with what I expected, but a deeper dive revealed that it wasn't even close.
