From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Printing from WindowXP version of emacs Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:31:10 +0200 Message-ID: References: <1134660719.186074.250590@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <43A1B787.9040001@student.lu.se> <43A27ACF.1040705@student.lu.se> <43A2D4E8.7090306@student.lu.se> NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1134762562 23393 80.91.229.2 (16 Dec 2005 19:49:22 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 19:49:22 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 16 20:49:21 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EnLXI-0000fJ-Lo for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 20:46:37 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EnLXt-0008Tg-8T for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:47:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EnHYr-0005o5-GY for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:31:57 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1EnHYq-0005nK-7d for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:31:56 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EnHYp-0005mr-Hj for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:31:55 -0500 Original-Received: from [192.114.186.17] (helo=gandalf.inter.net.il) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1EnHbG-0005E4-Pd for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 10:34:27 -0500 Original-Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id HGZ24207; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:31:09 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-83-130-246-163.inter.net.il [83.130.246.163]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.2-GA) with ESMTP id CFU54055 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:31:08 +0200 (IST) Original-To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org In-reply-to: <43A2D4E8.7090306@student.lu.se> (message from Lennart Borgman on Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:53:28 +0100) X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:31996 Archived-At: > Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 15:53:28 +0100 > From: Lennart Borgman > CC: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org > > Let me tell you what I have done and seen. When I started using Emacs I > looked in the Emacs NT FAQ, searched the Internet and tried everything. > Nothing worked. Or nearly. I did not try GhostScript/GSView because I > felt a bit uncomfortable with that. I think the trouble has to do with > changing network routines in Windows, but I have not investigated it > further. (Too much job and not very interesting, actually.) If you really want to find out what was wrong in your case, you will have to supply details. Telling that you ``tried everything and nothing worked'' will not do. > Then I looked into the Emacs C development sources and read a bit about > the printing interface in Windows. As far as I can see Emacs just does > not implement the printing interface currently. Emacs needs either a port name or a printer name, and it treats those as if they were files. These two possibilities cover most of the Windows printer configurations I've seen. The question is, what is your configuration, and why these two possibilities don't work for it. > >You are free to do what you want, but I have grave reservations about > >recommending such solutions to Emacs users at large, while other > >solutions exist. Certainly not as the first alternative. IMHO, at > >the very least. > > > As you probably understand I disagree. I think it was clear that we disagree even without saying that one more time.