[2341] in Enterprise Print Delivery Team
Re: Why IPM vs APS
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lynne E. Durland)
Tue Feb 26 20:00:56 2002
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.2.20020226195200.00aaa120@hesiod>
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 19:52:55 -0500
To: "Rocklyn E. Clarke" <rclarke@MIT.EDU>,
Enterprise Printing Delivery Project Team <printdel@MIT.EDU>
From: "Lynne E. Durland" <durland@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <p05010400b8a1710f4da1@[18.152.2.129]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Hey guys,
Are we reinventing this list, shouldn't there already be on our web pages
somewhere from when we were comparing IPM to others out there to make the
final IPM decision?
Lynne
At 12:15 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, Rocklyn E. Clarke wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm comfy with the list. I should point out some push back we might get
>on a couple of the items however:
>
> - User friendly interface for users
>A user friendly interface for the LPRng function currently in use by APS
>would probably not require any more effort than we put into the web
>interface to IPM.
>
>
>
>
> - Retention of printed files for reprints without resubmits
>Although APS does not currently retain print jobs for reprinting, LPRng
>can be configured fairly easily to provide that function in raw form. We
>were exploiting that capability ourselves until a few months ago while we
>learned to trust the hand off from LPRng to IPM.
>
>
>
>These are still reasonable requirements, but one could argue that they
>could have been satisfied without adding IPM to our solution. The rest of
>the list however is pretty compelling in my opinion.
>
>Rocklyn
>
>--------
>At 5:52 PM -0500 2/25/02, David F Lambert wrote:
>>As soon as Rocklyn checks in on the list, please do add it to the project
>>notebook. I just want to hear that Rocklyn's comfy with the current list.
>>
>>-Dave
>>
>>On Mon, 25 Feb 2002 16:59:02 -0500 MEB said:
>> >Looks good to me. Shall I put it up in the project notebook- maybe
>> >right on the top page?
>> >
>> >At 4:43 PM -0500 2/25/02, David F Lambert wrote:
>> >>Hi Gang,
>> >>
>> >>Since we've heard some secondhand grumblings about IPM vs APS, I thought
>> >>it might be useful to make a list and include it on our web pages as
>> >>well as in our response to Susan. Here's what Lynne & I came up with.
>> >>After adding any additional comments you may have, I'd like to put this
>> >>in our project notebook and include it in the note I'm drafting in
>> >>response to Susan. Your quick feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>> >>
>> >>-Dave
>> >>
>> >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> ~~~~
>> >>
>> >>The team has received secondhand information questioning the choice of
>> >>Infoprint Manager over the existing Athena Print Services. Below
>> >>is a list of requirements identified during the discovery effort
>> >>which is satisfied by IPM and not believed to be available with APS.
>> >>
>> >>Please note that a shared central printing service has requirements which
>> >>are not needed or are less useful in a distributed printing environment.
>> >>
>> >>- User friendly interface for users
>> >>- User friendly interface for operators
>> >>- Ability to manage IPDS printers as well as Postscript printers
>> >> to reduce overall capital costs
>> >>- Support for electronic overlay forms
>> >>- Page size information for queued files for print scheduling purposes
>> >>- Current page count for actively printing file
>> >>- Ability to start a file on page 'n'
>> >>- Retention of printed files for reprints without resubmits
>> >>- Ability to obtain accurate and detailed printer status information
>> >
Lynne E. Durland
Information Systems
Database Services Team
W91-109
P:258-5857
E: durland@mit.edu
H: 603-421-0940
H: KB1FEM
"When speaking to a Bear of Very Little Brain, remember that long words may
Bother Him."
--A.A. Milne
