Foomatic & Ghostscript

[Leebs14]

Has anyone had experience using this software? I'm being told using this free software allows a Mac to print to a PCL ( non Mac compatible) machine?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KenB]

Re: Foomatic & Ghostscript

Has anyone had experience using this software? I'm being told using this free software allows a Mac to print to a PCL ( non Mac compatible) machine?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Three words: DON'T DO IT!

You may want to fiddle with it for your own use, but it is no way, shape, or form something you would even hint at for your customers.

You can't support it.

Stick with PostScript, even though it is normally (but not always) a chargeable option.

[rthonpm]

Re: Foomatic & Ghostscript

I cannot agree more. Any type of *nix printing (OS X at its core is just NetBSD) needs PostScript since the entire CUPS framework is built off of the PostScript language. Foomatic or other PCL emulators are missing features at best, and absolutely buggy at worst. If you have customers with Macs or any kind of Linux systems they're going to need equipment that supports PostScript. Sales teams always overlook this and try to lower the price to get a sale, especially when they see the price some of the OEM's charge for the option. Back in my Ricoh and dealer days, I always had to follow up with the sales weasels anytime they went to a customer with anything out of the ordinary computer-wise.

[Santander]

Re: Foomatic & Ghostscript

Has anyone had experience using this software? I'm being told using this free software allows a Mac to print to a PCL ( non Mac compatible) machine?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What machine are you trying to print to? Most reputable copier/printer manufactures provide both a PCL and a PS driver for their units, some even allow you to change from PS to PCL within the driver. Don't see the need for this program. As stated in a previous post, DON'T DO IT! It will only you cause you and your customer headaches.

[KenB]

Re: Foomatic & Ghostscript

Just because a manufacturer supplies a PostScript driver for a specific model, that does not mean that the given model has PostScript capabilities automagically.

I have trained my local salesforce to not only ask "Do you need PostScript?", but rather:

1. Do you have any Macs?
2. Do you have any UNIX or Linux machines?
3. Do you have any Windows applications such as Photoshop, InDesign, or any other app that is PostScript "centric"?
4. Do you print large PDFs, or PDFs in volume?

Anything close to a "yes" on any of these means that PostScript is needed.

Sometimes this gets the customer thinking, and leads to the addition of a Fiery print controller in lieu of the internal one (provided one is offered for that model, of course).

[qbert69]

Re: Foomatic & Ghostscript

Based on the topic and having a little bit of experience in the *nix workspace, I will have to say that Linux does a better job of finding, pulling and installing a correct print driver from their central database than Apple does! I have experienced this "ease of use" on both Linux Lite OS and Ubuntu! It's nice that Apple initiated the CUPS system, but when it comes to pulling the necessary driver automagically, Linux seems to do a better job of it!