Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!
timeinc!dwight
From: dwi...@timeinc.UUCP (Dwight Ernest)
Newsgroups: net.text
Subject: Postscript(tm) Raster Imaging HOL from Adobe
Message-ID: <153@timeinc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 1-May-85 22:24:04 EDT
Article-I.D.: timeinc.153
Posted: Wed May  1 22:24:04 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 3-May-85 02:43:30 EDT
Reply-To: dwi...@timeb.UUCP (Dwight Ernest)
Organization: Time, Inc. - New York
Lines: 26


	I'm quite interested in any comments anyone might
have concerning Adobe Systems, Inc., or their new proposed
raster imaging high-order programming language (stream language
for output device interpretation) called Postscript(tm).
It would appear to be not only a great idea, but perhaps an
idea whose time has come; standards in raster imaging are
certainly sorely needed. Briefly, Postscript drivers would
be written (and in some cases have been written, for instance,
by Apple for the Mac) to convert internal raster formats
into Postscript source code for outputting to raster imaging
devices in which are located interpreters (a good example
of an actual implementation is the new Apple LaserWriter for
the Mac) with their own MPUs and integral Postscript interpreter
along with, ummm, 1.5 megs of ROM and .5 megs of RAM (or have
I got it reversed?).
	Is anyone else using this/interested in this/know
anything more about this/interested in conversing about this?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
		--Dwight Ernest	KA2CNN	\ Usenet:...vax135!timeinc!dwight
		  Time Inc. Edit./Prod. Tech. Grp., New York City
		  Voice: (212) 554-5061 \ Compuserve: 70210,523
		  Telemail: DERNEST/TIMECOMDIV/TIMEINC \ MCI: DERNEST
"The opinions expressed above are those of the writer and do not necessarily
 reflect the opinions of Time Incorporated."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cubsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!rna!cubsvax!peters
From: pet...@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin)
Newsgroups: fa.laser-lovers
Subject: Impress vs. Postscript
Message-ID: <336@cubsvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 11:02:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: cubsvax.336
Posted: Wed May 29 11:02:15 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 04:26:50 EDT
Reply-To: pet...@cubsvax.UUCP (Peter S. Shenkin)
Organization: Columbia Univ Biology, New York City
Lines: 38

I recently wrote a freshman chemistry study guide to accompany a new
text (Segal's "Chemistry, Experiment and Theory"), and had to supply
camera-ready copy to the publisher (Wiley).  The text was being processed with
troff, making extensive use of tbl and especially eqn, but the best 
output device we had was the Versatec, which wasn't good enough.  So
I started looking around for laser printers to typeset the final output.
I looked at an Imagen 8/300, a LaserWriter and an Imagen 10 (older model,
240/in resolution;  I may have the name a bit off;  it may be Impress 10
or Imprint 10 or something).  I ended up using the last of these because it was
free, but got to look at extensive samples (Like 20-40 page chapters with
equations) on the LaserWriter and the 8/300 in the course of deciding.

After reading Les Earnest's and Brian Reid's interchanges, I decided to
pull out what I could find of past samples and take a look.  Unfortunately,
I couldn't find the 8/300 sample, but my recollection is that, except for
resolution, it looked pretty much like the Imagen 10 sample.  I wish I
had all three to look at together, so take what you are about to hear with
your own grain of salt.  My impression is that LaserWriter wins.  The fonts
on the Imagen are just too ugly.  I see no problem with spacing on the
LaserWriter.  I realize there are many caveats, mostly involving defaults.
The Imagen files were printed with default fonts, and the LaserWriter output
was printed using Transcript to Postscript, which may adjust spacing better
than the samples Les is looking at.  But I wish I had had a LaserWriter 
available at the time I was running off my book.  

I will say that Transcript/Postscript drew crummy square-root signs (too far 
above the argument, and not extending low enough to the left);  on the other 
hand, troff -t, when filtered into an Impress file using whatever program Imagen
supplied, drew square root signs through the middle of the argument, so that
when running off the final document square roots had to be removed from the
input file, then drawn in by hand.  (It's now years later than this software
was supplied, so it's possible this bug has been fixed.)

Incidentally, I'm sending this to fa.laser-lovers via Pnews from a Usenet site.
Does anyone know if an article posted in that manner gets back to ARPA?  I.e.,
will Les and Brian get it?

Peter S. Shenkin	 		philabs!cubsvax!peters