Thank you.
I believe that printer has settings in the printer that control that.
Check the manual for various printer settings.
LB
From all my experiences with Epson LQ series printers (510, 1500, 2550), under
various operating systems (Commodore 64, OS/2, MS-DOS, Win3.1, W9x), I can
state with reasonable certainty that because Windows prints everything as dot
addressable graphics--to get WYSIWYG--the printer does not print
bi-directionally in this print mode.
The reason is that there is too much slack in the printhead mechanism. If the
printer allowed dot-addressable graphics to be printed bi-directionally,
vertical lines that connects from one print row to the next would waver and
look rather jagged.
If you are interested in having the printer print from its native font set,
printing bi-directionally (and therefore quickly), consider installing a
Generic/Text-Only printer driver. That has worked for me in the past.
--
If you can't understand what I wrote above, then read the quotes below.
Brian Smither <dsmi...@stripthisaway.inreach.com> wrote in message
news:1Q465.2748$q5.7...@news.inreach.com...
Certain Epson models, 1500 and 2550 I know of, have added memory for
downloadable fonts. The 510 has a plug-in cartridge. Back in my Commodore
days, I had a collection of downloadable printer fonts which are,
unfortunately, long ago buried deep in storage. Once these fonts are in the
printer, it will print bi-directionally.
It was a neat trick provided your word processor could send a binary file
mid-stream among the ascii. A program called PaperClip was the only program I
know of that could do this. If you look carefully at the programmer's manual
for your printer (not the simple user's manual), you will see how to send a
user-defined set of characters.
Once you have a file that defines a font, try this in MS-Word: Insert, Object,
Create from file, <path/name of file> and check Link to file (this is
important because inserting an alien type file will royally screw up the
document as it existed prior to the insertion and there is NO hope of CTRL-Z
recovery).
I have not tried this myself, your experiments are your own.