From hpfcla!hpfcmc!marko Fri Dec 11 13:09 MST 1987
Received: by hpfclw.HP.COM; Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:09:28 mst
Received: from hpfcla.HP.COM by hpfclw.HP.COM; Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:09:23 mst
Received: from hpfcmc.HP.COM by hpfcla.HP.COM; Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:04:08 mst
Received: by hpfcmc.HP.COM; Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:06:57 mst
From: Mark Ostendorf <hpfcla!hpfcmc!marko>
Return-Path: <hpfcmc!marko>
Message-Id: <8712112006.AA23314@hpfcmc.HP.COM>
To: hpfcmc!hpfcla\!bayes, hpfcmc!hpfcla\!carolt, hpfcmc!hpfcla\!jws,
        hpfcmc!rick, hpfcmc!hpfcla\!mlk
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 87 13:06:55 MST
Subject: Paintjet memos
X-Mailer: Elm [version 1.5]
Status: R

In response to your memo on the Paintjet problem/recommendation, I wanted
to clarify my position on changing Paintjet support from a high want to a
want.  My gut feeling is we should move Paintjet support to a "must".  Like
BASIC, I feel their are alot of customers who could use color output.
This is substantiated by two, FEO and Becton Dicksonson, who have written
their own drivers because we are late to the market!  I have also talked
with the Ed Darland from SID who would like this support.  As you mentioned
these are the only customers who have come forward and they have solutions
(except for the Chem Station Divison and their request is only a want). 
Because their is no other data to support a high want/must and the task is
non trivial, I believe the right decision is to move it to a want. 

We plan to talk to Pascal customers about migration needs to standard O/Ss
in the near future.  If this happens,  Paintjet may come up and could give
us better data than we have today.  

I hope this helps carify my postion.

Thanks,

Mark O.


