Apple Personal Laserwriter 300 Series: Who is it?

[LC_575]

It's almost universal knowledge here that nearly all (or maybe just all) Apple printers are based upon or are simply rebadged Canon and Hewlett-Packard printers. Recently I watched this Youtube video of a Personal Laserwriter 300 in action:

When I first watched that video, I remarked at how similar in size and form factor the 300 was to the HP Laserjet 4L/mL series of printers. Then I listened to the video as my own 4L printed. They sound nearly identical. Considering that they DO use the same print engine, they probably even use the same cartridge.

I find it funny though that Apple would choose the 4L to be the progenitor of the 300, considering HP was already selling a Mac friendly version of the 4L, the 4mL.

 

[~Coxy]

That is incorrect. The majority of Apple printers were not rebadged, they were designed and built by Apple.

Where the urban myth comes from is that only a very few companies made print engines. So between several completely different printers, you might have a single Canon engine driving them all, taking the same cartridge and having similar specs.

Possibly the very late model StyleWriters were the exception to the rule, but I don't know that for sure.

 

[LC_575]

The latest StyleWriters are clearly just rebadged HP Deskjets.

 

[jsarchibald]

I have a StyleWriter 4500 which is clearly a HP model. It even has a HP power brick, even though the unit is Apple branded.

 

[jongleur]

Canon supplied most of the laser printer engines back then, with the controller and firmware being developed and added by the manufacturer, be they HP, Apple, and just about everybody else. Still, it came down to the quality of the implementation, as I remember the wide variation in print quality when working with various bands/models and the IPDS controllers that were either integrated, or added to the basic printer (for IBM's AFP architecture).

 

[Concorde1993]

The Personal LaserWriter series was a joke. They could not be expanded (memory-wise), and were not Postscript, which made printing documents with, or without text, extremely long.

I own a LW 300. It used to be my main printing source for good copy documents, up until I purchased a Brother HL-3070CW a couple of weeks ago, and it is a far more capable printer (but then again, you can't really compare a 1993 LW to a 2010 Brother...or can you?).

 

[beachycove]

The Personal LaserWriter/ Personal LaserWriter 300 was indeed a QuickDraw printer. In 1993-94, however, the PLW 300 was not a joke — e.g., it worked rather well with a Newton and with the then-still-up-for-grabs QuickDraw GX, which at the time had been invested in heavily by Apple and could have become a market standard rather than a damp squib had the money been better spent.

Other Personal LaserWriters such as the 4/600 and the much more capable 12/640 were solid printers for their time, and used standard PostScript level 2 language.

 

[beachycove]

There is definitely something different about the last StyleWriters (4500, 6500) and their HP equivalents. The HP870cxi (the 6500), an example of which I own, for instance, is not natively recognized by StyleWriter drivers, nor does it appear on the desktop except in a generic printer icon when set up as a desktop printer. In keeping with the general loss of seamlessness in Apple-branded equipment of the time, the HP870cxi is something of a pain to control by comparison with the StyleWriter equivalent, as the HP software is rather clumsily implemented and unintuitive.

StyleWriters were not only re-branded and re-packaged; they were also re-conceived in terms of the MacOS, and accordingly somewhat re-worked. In many cases that re-working included the hardware difference of the Macintosh serial port rather than the old parallel port.

Apple computers were and are mostly a question of design & software/hardware integration. The company has never really done basic engineering of the components used. Thus they have, over the past 30 years or so, bought their CPUs from the likes of Motorola, IBM or Intel, as the spirit of the times moved; they bought their DSP chips from AT&T; they bought their graphics chips from IX Micro or from NVidia or whomever; and they bought their printer engines from Canon or HP or Xerox. Is there any difference at all in these practices?

 

[Concorde1993]

In 1993-94, however, the PLW 300 was not a joke — e.g., it worked rather well with a Newton and with the then-still-up-for-grabs QuickDraw GX, which at the time had been invested in heavily by Apple and could have become a market standard rather than a damp squib had the money been better spent.

I will have to agree with you on that, Beachycove. The LW300 is definitely a good printer for the Newton (after having printed quite a few lectures from my eMate 300) but that's about it.

I think Apple could have released a personal postscript printer. It probably would have sold far better than the QuickDraw PLWs.

 

[beachycove]

But they did release a number of Postscript-language Personal LaserWriter models — the PLW 4/600, for example. I have printed to a 4/600 via a bridge daily for years from OSX. It needs the RAM upgraded to 6MB to work well, but it has never failed.

For big jobs I use a 12/640, but the nice thing about the 4/600 is the size, silence and low energy consumption.

 

[jongleur]

But they did release a number of Postscript-language Personal LaserWriter models — the PLW 4/600, for example. I have printed to a 4/600 via a bridge daily for years from OSX. It needs the RAM upgraded to 6MB to work well, but it has never failed.
For big jobs I use a 12/640, but the nice thing about the 4/600 is the size, silence and low energy consumption.

I know what you mean. My 16/600PS is my main printer. When I got mine I was lucky to also score an AppleTalk<->Ethernet adapter, so it sits nicely on my network for all my machines to use. Was a "bit of fun" getting the IP address changed with no console on the printer, but I got it sorted out (see http://retromaccast.ning.com/profiles/blogs/old-printers-can-be-a-pain for the details) in the end.

 

[beachycove]

Those two printers I presently have on the network at home.

At the office (where I have to supply my own equipment, though I do have a budget line for it), I still use a LaserWriter Pro 630, which is the same shape as the 16/600. The 16/600 was manufactured maybe two years later than the LW Pro 630, using the same case, fuser etc., but it has a different logic board and has a much faster (RISC, I believe) processor. The LW Pro 630 is powered by a 68030 and 68882, running at a mere 25MHz or some such.

Still, it is great to have something that can do Appletalk over two ports at once, that can be upgraded to 32MB of RAM, and that just keeps rolling out the pages without a hitch. Oh, and not the least of its virtues is that I bought it for something like $20 seven or eight years ago, plus I discover that refilling the toner cartridge makes it astonishingly economical — you can get 3 or maybe 4 refills and so something like 20k of clearly printed pages for peanuts. Heck, I can buy a brand new toner cartridge for $25-30, because of their ubiquity (it's a very common HP part number) and because of their age (suppliers want rid of them). Why get a new one when the old does so well?

Unfortunately, the LW Pro 630 cannot be set up as an LPR printer without using an additional machine, for which the LPR function in A/UX is one possibility, or more straightforwardly, the print server in any version of AppleShare IP. The ability to set the IP address of a LaserWriter printer itself using Apple Printer Utility and then to print to it using built-in LPR functionality was only added to the LaserWriter series, I believe, with the introduction of the 16/600. After that it became standard on the high-end LaserWriters. Thus, for instance, it is not possible on my low-end 4/600, but it is on my highish-end 12/640, which date from exactly the same period.

Now that printing over Appletalk has been abandoned in OSX, I can see the end of some of these great old machines looming — only not yet.

 

[Concorde1993]

Now that printing over Appletalk has been abandoned in OSX, I can see the end of some of these great old machines looming — only not yet.

The LaserWriters, ImageWriters & StyleWriters still have a long way to go in terms of retaining their useful nature. Remember, there is still a vast amount of people (like ourselves on the 68k forum) that still use the Classic systems for primitive word-processing, and as such require an Apple printer, or other genetically-comparable unit to work with the serial-8 architecture. These printers will "officially die" when the parts, ink, toner, ribbons, etc are no longer being manufactured, and sold.

I managed to pickup 4 brand-new IW II ribbons at Staples earlier this year for about $15 altogether. Of course, these are just standard black ribbons. The colour ones I had to do some serious searching on Craigslist/Kijiji in order to find a seller who had them. Fortunately, I did, and now I have about 20 colour ribbons still in their original shrink-wrap (and they're Apple-branded too!) for dirt cheap. I used one not too long ago to print a title page for an assignment (just for the heck of it). The quality, despite the fact that it is a 9-pin dot-matrix, was not too shabby. My teacher was impressed that I still had one (now two) kicking around.

But they did release a number of Postscript-language Personal LaserWriter models — the PLW 4/600, for example.

Well, forgive my ignorance then. If that was the case, why wasn't the 300-series Postscript? Was Apple really that desperate for printer market-share?

...16/600PS

Yep, I remember her. Very durable. My elementary school had one as their main network printer in the library from 1995-2002, until it was replaced by a HP Laserjet 4000 (or something like that). I was there not too long ago, and they are still using it.

 

[akator]

In 1991 I purchased a PLW 300 with my Mac IIsi. I don't recall the exact price, but IIRC it was around $700. It had a Canon print engine.

But they did release a number of Postscript-language Personal LaserWriter models — the PLW 4/600, for example.

Well, forgive my ignorance then. If that was the case, why wasn't the 300-series Postscript? Was Apple really that desperate for printer market-share?

- Postscript had to be licensed from Adobe. More $$$

- Instead of using the computer CPU to process the print page, Postscript printers had their own processing. More $$$

In the early 90s, even the cheapest Postscript laser printers started around $2000. That wasn't an option for some of us.

 

[wally]

Indeed. In my 1992 catalog the Personal Laserwriter NTR was $1989, specs at

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP438

Adding a Farallon EtherMac iPrint Adapter PN559 puts it on the Ethernet.

Compare with the QuickDraw Personal Laserwriter LS at $1079.

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP440

The Personal Laserwriter 300 followed some time later, priced in my Fall 1993 catalog at $689,

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP437

The original Laserwriter series was capable but bulky and heavy. The Personal Laserwriter NTR was a Postscript printer you could lift.

Additional printers designated as personal show up in my Summer 1993 catalog: the Laserwriter Select 300 lists at $819, and the Postscript model, Laserwriter Select 310 lists at $1079.

See

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP435

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP434

 

[akator]

Compare with the QuickDraw Personal Laserwriter LS at $1079.

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP440

The Personal Laserwriter 300 followed some time later, priced in my Fall 1993 catalog at $689,

http://support.apple.com/kb/SP437

Thanks for pointing that out. I had an LS, not a 300. So it was my LS that had a Canon engine, I have no idea what the 300 had.

Mine was around $700 because of an educational discount and being part of a bundle when purchased with a IIsi.

 

[Concorde1993]

I have no idea what the 300 had.

It was a QuickDraw printer with a Canon engine. The quality is OK, but if you decide to print-out a PDF doc, or an image, expect to wait about 5 minutes per sheet.

In the early 90s, even the cheapest Postscript laser printers started around $2000. That wasn't an option for some of us.

I would have invested in the $2 000 printer. Better to take a nose-dive knowing that your printouts are good, and it won't take you forever to print your documents (and the fact that you can expand the memory at any given time).

It's funny how we have progressed. My Brother laser printer was only $400 (including taxes), it prints in "digital colour," has wireless/ethernet capabilities, comes with 64MB of memory (expandable to 500MB, or so), and the drum/fuser has a lifespan of approx. 25 000 pages (and of course, it's Postscript). The only disadvantage is it does not do double-sided printing, but considering the features this thing has (and the improvement in print-quality from a cheap, yet durable Canon i560 bubblejet & Epson C64), I am very impressed with this printer.

 

[Scott Baret]

The printers won't actually die when the supplies are discontinued. There will always be folks who will remanufacture toner, refill ink, and re-ink ribbons.

As far as engines--Apple printers were designed around print engines in the same way hard drives were designed around mechanisms built by different companies. Apple-branded drives were never actually made by Apple themselves, but contained Apple-specific components (if you've ever tried to format a non-Apple Quantum ProDrive with Apple HD SC Setup, you know what I speak of).

Most of Apple's laser printers were based on a Canon engine. The ImageWriters were built around C. Itoh components, and the StyleWriters around Canon (early) or HP (late).

Retooled HPs were nothing new. The DeskWriters were DeskJets with serial connectors designed specifically for Macs. Apple pretty much took the concept but adopted it as their own. There were ways to make regular DeskJets work on Macs, but they weren't as practical as getting an actual DeskWriter.

The good news about the common print engines, be it in a LaserWriter or other Apple printer, is the interchangeable cartridges. Canon and HP cartridges will work fine in many of these models and sometimes work in competing models as well. In fact, I have an HP cartridge in my Canon-based LaserWriter right now.

The proof of Apple's printers being their own--the book "AppleDesign". I know it's a rarity these days, but it details the design process of Apple's products from the 70s through the mid-90s. Printers are among the topics in there--they were actually built to match the design language of the computers of the time. It's not evident at all in the HP-based StyleWriters, but remember, Apple was in some financial trouble at the time and was using some generic designs circa 1997, perhaps in an attempt to save money on design teams or because cash was foolishly being invested in Copland. (The Power Mac 4400 is a case in point--a metal PC case with the floppy drive on the wrong side). Still, there was some engineering underneath--it's not like a Buick Skyhawk from the 80s, which is a Chevy Cavalier by any other name.

 

[Concorde1993]

The printers won't actually die when the supplies are discontinued. There will always be folks who will remanufacture toner, refill ink, and re-ink ribbons.

Yeah, but Scott, how many times can you possibly re-manufacture toner & refill ink until the cartridges become completely useless due to wear & tear? I wouldn't even bother considering re-inking ribbons just because it is far more economical to purchase a new one & the process is extremely difficult & time consuming. Besides, the wear on the ribbon caused by constantly passing through the print head will show drastic degradation in print quality, even after it's re-inked. It's no different than playing the same tape through a VCR over & over again.

Bottom line- once these manufacturers call it quits, that's it. But I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon, as the majority of these printers are re-badged HP & Canon models, and they still produce toners for printers that have well passed their product cycle, so there's nothing to worry about.