Talk:Dot matrix printing

sound artist

Removed the following:

Due to dot matrix printers recently falling into disuse, Sue Harding, an Australian sound artist, has used the characteristic sounds of dot matrix printers in action in her work.

I'm struggling to see what the significance of this is to dot matrix printers. IIRC, sound artists have used all manner of sounds, from flushing toilets to industrial jackhammers to whales mating, as part of their constructions. Has Sue Harding's work using the printer sounds become particularly well-known? --Robert Merkel 13:20, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NLQ vs 24-pin

I can't remember -- did 24-pin printers come first, or printer 'NLQ'? I know third-party software offered NLQ-like capabilities before NLQ-fonts were built into printers. Regardless, I do know Epson eventually added NLQ to its 9-pin printers.

"NLQ" came first I think, but it was a rather a marketing stretch. 24-pin printers produced much better output than 9-pin printers in NLQ mode. --Robert Merkel 23:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

special effect

I'm looking for photo software that will create a dot matrix effect with jpeg and other files 05:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)whicky1978 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect figure, re:wear on head?

Is this sentence correct?-

After about a million characters, even with tungsten blocks and titanium pawls, the printing becomes too unclear to read.

If we assume that an 80-column printout also has 80 lines, that gives (potentially) 1600 (oops... thanks Atlant) 6400 characters per page. At one-third full, let's say that's 500 2000 characters per page on average.

One million characters is only 2000 500 pages. That's the equivalent of just four normal-sized packs a single ream of A4/legal paper.

This sounds improbably low.

Fourohfour 20:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

'Sounds low to me, too, but the printers I've dealt with have all had "jeweled" (garnet? sapphire?) heads and (I think) steel wires so the wear on the guideplate was reduced. But I'd guess that these printers printed far more than your calculated 2000 pages. Heck, I used to print my tech docs on them and they ran hundreds of pages at far more than 500 characters/page, more like 3 or 4 thousand characters/page.

Atlant 20:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the figure; doing the arithmetic correctly reveals one million characters to be actually just 500 pages (one ream), and there's no way that's correct, even in the cheapest, nastiest dot-matrix. Fourohfour 12:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

storage devices

which one storage device is best to use(hdd, dat,zip,cd'setc) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arun.mahlan (talk • contribs) .

Depends what you want to do with it!

ZIP disks/drives are quite old-fashioned now; the only reason for using them is to share files with someone else who uses ZIP disks/drives.

As for the others, they all have different areas of use; but Wikipedia talk pages are really intended for discussing article content. There are other online forums better suited to discussing your choice of storage media. All the best! Fourohfour 17:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dot matrix example text caption

Please do not carry out editing debates in the body of the article - even as comments. This is where that discussion belongs.

What's going on here is that the title is poorly worded. One person reads "The unenlarged region" to mean "The entire image" (which could easily be 4.6 centimeters - and nobody would remotely imagine could be 4.5 millimeters!) - the other person reads it as "The unenlarged version of the letter 'e' in the image" - which couldn't remotely be 4.5 centimeters - and for which 4.5 millimeters is probably reasonable.

So - stop arguing about it - and rewrite the text to make the interpretation of this less ambiguous. That is why we use the 'talk' page and not the article for these discussions.

SteveBaker 16:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -- you correctly diagnosed (and corrected) the problem. I've now made one small amplification and one small correction to that new caption.

Atlant 16:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool - your addition helps even more. Thanks! SteveBaker 16:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A few points;

1. Steve; I *did* "stop arguing and rewrite the text" to make it clearer; admittedly, Atlant's version (specifically "entire image") is simpler and cleaner, but please don't imply that I didn't make the effort.
2. I apologise for tweaking Atlant's version; the only problem I had was that "4.5cm" could be taken to mean either width or height. If I made it less clear again, please feel free to rewrite it.
3. You're right that most of the stuff in the edit summary and inline comment should have gone on the talk page. However, inclusion of brief comments (e.g. <!--# 4.5 CENTimetres is correct; see [[talk]]-->) is reasonable where an issue is likely to raise its head again.
4. Normally, if I have doubts about a figure, and I think it sounds "probably reasonable", I avoid jumping to conclusions and raise it on the talk page first.

Anyway, this edit probably was genuine- but it was still wrong, and passed uncommented into the edit history. Big deal? In one sense, no; but it's this sort of minor slippage that builds up and damages Wikipedia. I'd characterise edits such as this one (reverted here) as potentially dangerous, whether or not they're meant to be subtle vandalism. Fourohfour 17:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You might read WP:AGF. Ask yourself - why would someone think that single letter 'e' was 4.5cm across - or conversely who would think all that text would fit into 4.5mm? When you assume that the other editor is working in good faith (as I assumed both of you were) - you rapidly come to the conclusion that rather than vandalism or something equally destructive, that there must be some more fundamental misunderstanding. But in any case, discussions belong here - not in the article and not in edit summaries. SteveBaker 00:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) I'm well aware of AGF, thank you. Please (a) reread my comment above "this edit probably was genuine" and (b) note that in the other case here, I used a qualified newbie "test" notice instead of "blatantvandal", despite my suspicions.

Please note that criticism of a particular edit does *not* imply non-AGF. "Good faith" (as used here) simply means that the user wasn't *intentionally* vandalising/inserting-POV/etc. Jumping to conclusions about what is and isn't right is still "good faith", but doesn't put it beyond criticism.

(2) Yes, I did realise that the sentence was potentially unclear; why would I have rewritten it otherwise? The rewrite wasn't perfect either; but the point here is that I recognised the problem. I already told you this.

(3) Discussions belong on the talk page? Sure, but you already said that, and I already agreed with you(!) The example comment I gave- <!--# CENTimetres is correct; see [[talk]]-->- doesn't constitute a discussion, and I'd only advocate the use of comments if the problem is likely to recur.

Fourohfour 11:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

References

The only reference listed here is this gigantic timeline of an entire company's contributions to the technological world. However, I've done ctrl f (searched) the site for either impact or dot (by itself) to see where it could be used as a source and have found nothing. I realize that this is the company that pioneered the device, but, would anyone have any more useful sources to cite from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R0cko (talk • contribs) 05:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

"italics (text) - built-in italics capability. Printer controller created the effect through digital processing of the typeface."

Per Epson's technical manual for the FX-80[1], the italic font was an actual second set of glyphs contained in the printer memory, not a processing effect. Given the extent to which later printers tried to mimic the FX-80, is the claim in the article completely false or just not of general application? — 78.105.17.36 (talk) 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Future of Dot Matrix Printers

I am merely a reader of this page. I have no expertise apart from having owned a few of these, including the Epson MX-80 pictured.

My question is that the last few sections of the article seem to contradict each other. I've read them several times, and can't figure out how I'm reading it wrong. So if correct, perhaps they should be re-written to be more clear to readers like me.

My issue is that the Disadvantages section states that Dot Matrix Printers have "comparatively lower speed" But in "The Future of DMP" it says that owners "are not easily convinced to go for printers based on other technologies because of the speed advantage of dot-matrix printers."

I can't imagine what the phrase "Because of the speed advantage" could mean. Can it be re-written by someone who actually understands what the original author was trying to say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rev Tie Dye (talk • contribs) 00:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Draft mode

The term 'draft mode' appears in two places in the article, but it's never explained at all.

Typical output from a dot matrix printer operating in draft mode.

and

Not surprisingly, all printers retained one or more 'draft' modes for high-speed printing.

It appears to be a significant subject, but it doesn't appear anywhere else in the article. — Marvin ^talk 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute - Use of dot matrix printers today

This section includes a statement about monopoly pricing of ink for inkjet printers. This statement is outside of this article's subject, and no citation backing this claim appears. It strikes me as biased, and I recommend it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew.todd.brown (talk • contribs) 13:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement relates to printing costs in explaining the displacement of dot matrix printers by inkjet printers, which does not seem outside the scope of the article. Rather than removing the statement, would it not be better to find an authoritative reference to document this well-known practice? For instance Freebie_marketing makes reference to this phenomenon and provides references. Pitix (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC).

I agree, I added a ref needed tab to the disputed section rather and removed the POv tag from the whole article. Ward20 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrong definition of "dot matrix printer"?

I am a bit surprised that the article equates "dot matrix printer" with "needle impact printer". A dot matrix printer is any printer that forms hardcopy using a dot matrix (a raster), using any suitable technology (which may or may not include needles and may be impact, non-impact, or even contactless), as opposed to printers using types (daisywheel, selectric, and chain printers), vector-based drawing (some "plotter" printers by Sharp come to mind) and traditional photo-typesetting.

Common laser printers, inkjet printers, thermal printers, electroerosion printers, dye sublimation printers, etc.are all dot matrix printers (though not impact printers). Needle impact printers are just one very specific technology that falls into the dot matrix printer class - even back in the day (1980s) when needle impact printers were prevalent, this difference was commonly understood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.58.12 (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I attempted to address this in DOT MATRIX PRINTERS dot matrix printers but this may have to wait. Pi314m (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Manchester airport

When i came to Canada from manchester, while in the airport i had the living daylights scared out of me when one went off nearby where i was sitting. I asked the woman about it and she said that they probibly are going to keep using dot matrix printers well into the forseeable future. They've had that Epson there sisne at least 2008-2009. Is this an indication of the future of dot matrix printing in your oppinions? Or will Manchester airport be the odd one out?

Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dot matrix printers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal

What the purpose of Dot matrix printer? Isn't this page describe the same concept? Tucvbif (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The two articles could certainly be merged. The value in keeping them separate would be if there is a need for an article that focuses more on specific models of printer rather than the general technology. That might justify retaining them as separate articles.--Srleffler (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Support merge Joyous! | Talk 11:34, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
• Support merge The subjects are highly related and there is no indication in the articles that there is dot matrix printing that isn't done by a printer. To Srleffler's point on models, the section on models seems excessive to the overall subject, but it can be considered after a merger; there may be worth in spinning them out to a List of dot matrix printers that can discuss these as, for instance, IBM 5103's main coverage is its section in dot matrix printer. —Ost (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Support TocMan (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Srleffler Joyous! Ost316 TocMan

Y I have merged the articles as per this consensus. I've made sure no detail or source from the other article has been left unaccounted for and everything's been put inline in this article, including categories. --Chiffonr (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Reverted edits 15:05, 26 January 2023‎ Amin1989

Reverted content that was WP:PROMOTION and WP:CITE. While Tally may have been a producer of dot matrix printers, the inclusion, with no citation of noteworthiness appears promotional. If an editor wants to add it back, go for it, so long as Tally can be cited as a significant contributor to early dot-matrix tech as was Centronics, Epson, OKI, etc.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)