"Dwight Stewart" wrote in message
ink.net...

spent decades trying to get similar results from their programs. At this
point, after decades of such efforts, it would really be more surprising
if
the results between the two (typewriters and computers) were actually that
different.


Let me get this right.

You're saying that Microsoft has spent millions of dollars
in order to re-create the mis-begotten spacing of
a thirty-year old mechanical device that was
dependent on a *spinning ball*?

That's what you're saying here?


And..... and I suppose Bill Gates is also spending
millions of dollars to re-create the ever-popular
mainframe "green screen" and punch-card input
for the next version of Windows!

"Isle Of The Dead" wrote:

Let me get this right.

You're saying that Microsoft has
spent millions of dollars in order
to re-create the mis-begotten
spacing of a thirty-year old
mechanical device that was
dependent on a *spinning ball*?

That's what you're saying here?


Not exactly, but you're close to what I'm saying. Visit your local
library, find some old computer magazines from the early 80's to early 90's,
and look at how many articles compare the results of various computer
printers first to the old typewriters and later to the printing presses of
the time. In the 80's, saying the output of your dot matrix printer was
nearly the same as a daisywheel typewriter (the popular typewriter of the
time) was the ideal. Later, with the intro of the laser printer, the
printing press appearance became the ultimate goal. Much of what we have
today is the result of those earlier efforts.

Stewart