-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
anybody use a dot-matrix printer for SAGE EAS ?
- Thread starter mr_elbows
- Start date
R
RadioDoc
Guest
> once again, one of the SAGE (Sorry A**ed Grotesque
> Engineering)units has eaten the print head
>
> we've got a TON of old d-m's laying around
>
> I've been told you can use that instead of the interior POS
> printer
>
> true ?
>
> false ?
>
> results if true ?
>
> Gary
>
True. It needs to be a serial-type printer, like the kind used back in the day for Network feeds. The older Epsons often had serial cards in them. I've done it before with success.
Alternatively (and a better solution IMHO), there is a free program available that will capture the data from the Sage box, store it, and print it out to whatever printer you have connected. It was designed for Windows 3.1, so it will run on that old POS PC you've got collecting dust in the transmitter building!
http://www.broadcast.net/bware/EASWatch.zip<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
> Engineering)units has eaten the print head
>
> we've got a TON of old d-m's laying around
>
> I've been told you can use that instead of the interior POS
> printer
>
> true ?
>
> false ?
>
> results if true ?
>
> Gary
>
True. It needs to be a serial-type printer, like the kind used back in the day for Network feeds. The older Epsons often had serial cards in them. I've done it before with success.
Alternatively (and a better solution IMHO), there is a free program available that will capture the data from the Sage box, store it, and print it out to whatever printer you have connected. It was designed for Windows 3.1, so it will run on that old POS PC you've got collecting dust in the transmitter building!
http://www.broadcast.net/bware/EASWatch.zip<P ID="signature">______________
</P>
Too bad it pegs the processor on a win2k / xp box - otherwise it works very well...
> > once again, one of the SAGE (Sorry A**ed Grotesque
> > Engineering)units has eaten the print head
> >
> > we've got a TON of old d-m's laying around
> >
> > I've been told you can use that instead of the interior
> POS
> > printer
> >
> > true ?
> >
> > false ?
> >
> > results if true ?
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
> True. It needs to be a serial-type printer, like the kind
> used back in the day for Network feeds. The older Epsons
> often had serial cards in them. I've done it before with
> success.
>
> Alternatively (and a better solution IMHO), there is a free
> program available that will capture the data from the Sage
> box, store it, and print it out to whatever printer you have
> connected. It was designed for Windows 3.1, so it will run
> on that old POS PC you've got collecting dust in the
> transmitter building!
>
> http://www.broadcast.net/bware/EASWatch.zip
>
> > once again, one of the SAGE (Sorry A**ed Grotesque
> > Engineering)units has eaten the print head
> >
> > we've got a TON of old d-m's laying around
> >
> > I've been told you can use that instead of the interior
> POS
> > printer
> >
> > true ?
> >
> > false ?
> >
> > results if true ?
> >
> > Gary
> >
>
> True. It needs to be a serial-type printer, like the kind
> used back in the day for Network feeds. The older Epsons
> often had serial cards in them. I've done it before with
> success.
>
> Alternatively (and a better solution IMHO), there is a free
> program available that will capture the data from the Sage
> box, store it, and print it out to whatever printer you have
> connected. It was designed for Windows 3.1, so it will run
> on that old POS PC you've got collecting dust in the
> transmitter building!
>
> http://www.broadcast.net/bware/EASWatch.zip
>
> Too bad it pegs the processor on a win2k / xp box -
> otherwise it works very well...
>
That's a problem with most DOS programs running on modern computers -- the old programs don't consider that the computers of the future have the ability to run multiple programs at a time.
</computer_programmer>
> otherwise it works very well...
>
That's a problem with most DOS programs running on modern computers -- the old programs don't consider that the computers of the future have the ability to run multiple programs at a time.
</computer_programmer>
W
westlife
Guest
> That's a problem with most DOS programs running on modern
> computers -- the old programs don't consider that the
> computers of the future have the ability to run multiple
> programs at a time.
No... by 1988, MS-DOS 4.0 came with a DOS Shell which could easily task-switch between multiple DOS programs running simultaneously.
The problem with a DOS program bringing Windows to a crawl is due to Windows giving it too much CPU time, especially when it is "idle" or minimized. If the DOS program has an icon on your desktop, right-click on it, choose Properties, then Misc, and then adjust the Idle Sensitivity slider.
Windows 3.1x programs do not need (or have) this adjustment, but Windows NT/2000/XP is not as compatible with Windows 3.x programs as Windows 95/98/ME was, especially when the program is trying to directly access your computer's hardware. So if you have a favorite Windows 3.x program which just won't run right in 2000/XP, consider setting up an older computer to be dedicated to that application, running Windows 98 SE (or even Windows 3.11 itself if you still have it!).
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
> computers -- the old programs don't consider that the
> computers of the future have the ability to run multiple
> programs at a time.
No... by 1988, MS-DOS 4.0 came with a DOS Shell which could easily task-switch between multiple DOS programs running simultaneously.
The problem with a DOS program bringing Windows to a crawl is due to Windows giving it too much CPU time, especially when it is "idle" or minimized. If the DOS program has an icon on your desktop, right-click on it, choose Properties, then Misc, and then adjust the Idle Sensitivity slider.
Windows 3.1x programs do not need (or have) this adjustment, but Windows NT/2000/XP is not as compatible with Windows 3.x programs as Windows 95/98/ME was, especially when the program is trying to directly access your computer's hardware. So if you have a favorite Windows 3.x program which just won't run right in 2000/XP, consider setting up an older computer to be dedicated to that application, running Windows 98 SE (or even Windows 3.11 itself if you still have it!).
<P ID="signature">______________
It's a common mistake to not use punctuation in its proper form.
<a target="_blank" href=http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html>Be kind to your friend, the apostrophe.</a></P>
I was semi-joking - there's a program called tamedos that lets you run dos programs and manages their cpu usage. Google it if you ever need it (and it worked well for this application).
> > That's a problem with most DOS programs running on modern
> > computers -- the old programs don't consider that the
> > computers of the future have the ability to run multiple
> > programs at a time.
>
> No... by 1988, MS-DOS 4.0 came with a DOS Shell which could
> easily task-switch between multiple DOS programs running
> simultaneously.
>
> The problem with a DOS program bringing Windows to a crawl
> is due to Windows giving it too much CPU time, especially
> when it is "idle" or minimized. If the DOS program has an
> icon on your desktop, right-click on it, choose Properties,
> then Misc, and then adjust the Idle Sensitivity slider.
>
> Windows 3.1x programs do not need (or have) this adjustment,
> but Windows NT/2000/XP is not as compatible with Windows 3.x
> programs as Windows 95/98/ME was, especially when the
> program is trying to directly access your computer's
> hardware. So if you have a favorite Windows 3.x program
> which just won't run right in 2000/XP, consider setting up
> an older computer to be dedicated to that application,
> running Windows 98 SE (or even Windows 3.11 itself if you
> still have it!).
>
> > That's a problem with most DOS programs running on modern
> > computers -- the old programs don't consider that the
> > computers of the future have the ability to run multiple
> > programs at a time.
>
> No... by 1988, MS-DOS 4.0 came with a DOS Shell which could
> easily task-switch between multiple DOS programs running
> simultaneously.
>
> The problem with a DOS program bringing Windows to a crawl
> is due to Windows giving it too much CPU time, especially
> when it is "idle" or minimized. If the DOS program has an
> icon on your desktop, right-click on it, choose Properties,
> then Misc, and then adjust the Idle Sensitivity slider.
>
> Windows 3.1x programs do not need (or have) this adjustment,
> but Windows NT/2000/XP is not as compatible with Windows 3.x
> programs as Windows 95/98/ME was, especially when the
> program is trying to directly access your computer's
> hardware. So if you have a favorite Windows 3.x program
> which just won't run right in 2000/XP, consider setting up
> an older computer to be dedicated to that application,
> running Windows 98 SE (or even Windows 3.11 itself if you
> still have it!).
>
As a matter of fact I have a client using a paralell printer on a Sage Endec for goin on 3 years now... I used a BlackBox serial to paralell converter and it works like a charm. Having a months RWT's and RMT on a regular sheet of paper is quite nice. <P ID="signature">______________
Let me drop everything and work on YOUR problem...</P>
<P ID="signature">______________Let me drop everything and work on YOUR problem...</P>
- Status