Serial Receipt Printer

[Brian K. White]

You don't really sound all that corrected. You sound like you don't have 
any idea what the problem is and don't believe there is a problem, or 
that the only problem is that everyone else must be idiots or they just 
like to give you a hard time for no reason because it's their hobby and 
they don't have anything else to do with their time besides think of 
ways to annoy you instead of just answering you're perfectly obvious 
questions given the perfectly sufficient info you supplied.

For instance, we had to _deduce_ that you were even talking about the 
Windows platform from the fact that you called the serial port COM1 and 
that you tried a win:... syntax. That major piece of info that changes 
everything was only supplied _by accident_, not because you 
intentionally supplied it.

You didn't even mention anything at all about the spooler until a later 
post so who knows before then if the job was simply sitting in the queue 
and not physically printing because the printer was paused or disabled 
or had some error etc.

No, you don't sound very corrected at all.

-- 
bkw

On 1/9/2011 1:57 PM, flowersoft at compuserve.com wrote:
> One would guess that when someone says that putting WIN:COM1 or COM1 in the
> destination file "does not seem to work", logical minds would assume that
> the printer IS NOT PRINTING!
> I did not think further explanation would be necessary.  I stand corrected.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces+flowersoft=compuserve.com at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+flowersoft=compuserve.com at lists.celestial.com]
> On Behalf Of Fairlight
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2011 1:55 AM
> To: filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> Subject: Re: Serial Receipt Printer
>
> The honourable and venerable Kenneth Brody spoke thus:
>>
>> Define "doesn't seem to work".
>
> At this point, we should just put it in our .sig files and save the typing.
> You'd think, after 30+ years of computing, that people would "get" the
> whole "thorough problem reporting" thing.  But nope...apparently not.
>
>> Assuming the printer is known to Windows, use the standard
> "WIN:printername"
>> syntax.  The fact that it's attached to a serial port is irrelevant.
>
> Have you guys considered starting a wiki for this kind of stuff.  Things
> like this and some other topics come up every few months.
>
> Of course...people would probably ignore the wiki's presence and -still-
> ask, but then we could skewer and fillet them without remorse.  Okay, I
> personally already feel no remorse...with negative remorse, then--we could
> -enjoy- it, guilt-free!
>
> mark->