Talk:Daisy wheel printing

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

It is requested that a video clip or video clips be included in this article to improve its quality.

Untitled

Any interest in expanding the article to cover the NEC Spinwriter ([1])? Bongomatic (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see some expanssion. Soemthing I've always wondered - where thimbles invented to dodge a patent on daisywheels, or was it for a mechanical advantage of reduced rotational inertia (from their reduced diameter). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bongomatic, thanks for finding the necam.com material. I did check nec.com, nec.jp and necdisplay.com, google images etc without success. Can you find anything independent? Anything published by the vendor is a bit suspect in Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. I've actually held a thimble in my hand but I've no idea where I would go now to find an image of one, or an output sample. NEC was early to market with 24-pin dot matrix output which helped kill off the Spinwriter, as I recall. - Pointillist (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, I suspect the answer was "both the above". NEC was a pioneer in "clean room" Reverse engineering, saying to engineers "it has to do this, but better". The V-series 808x-alikes are a good example. - Pointillist (talk) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pointillist, for non-controversial information, like specifications, actually primary sources are fine under WP:V, and the citation is only intended to demonstrate the existence of the thimble configuration in the first place (I was unable to find a drawing, but if you drill down under Spinwriter there are tons of old manuals, etc).

For the comparison between daisy wheel and thimble, that looks all very subjective to me in the first place—I would be surprised if someone put a UL study looking at the printing speed at which daisy wheels versus thimbles exploded.

Regards, Bongo matic 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick feedback. Well, I would prefer a third party image if I can find one or take one (I must have had hundreds of opportunities to photograph Spinwriters in the past). No, I never heard of a UL report on daisywheels "going critical", either, so I'll pull that comparison from the article. - Pointillist (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Graphics" section: Brother Twinriter 5 and 6 models worth mentioning?

Brother Industries manufactured the Twinriter 5 (1985) and 6 (1987) printers which tried to overcome the limitation of the missing graphics capabilities of daisy wheel printers by adding a dot matrix print head to the existing daisy wheel print head, with the former being used for letter quality printing and the latter for drafts and for printing symbols which were not present in the daisy wheel character set. Here are a few of the more relevant links I've found about these printers:

[2] (Twinriter 5)
[3] (Twinriter 6, with picture further down the page)
[4] (Twinriter 6)

These printers are worth mentioning in this section in my opinion. What do you think? Rberra (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got sourceable content, then by all means go for it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

DaisyWheel.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]