From: mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) Subject: Re: Wordprocessor - Tom responds. Date: Fri, 28 May 1993 03:12:57 GMT
bsa@kf8nh.wariat.org (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>In article <1993May27.122636.5249@taylor.uucp> mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>dfox@hip-hop.suvl.ca.us (David Fox) writes:
>>>wa95003@black.ox.ac.uk (Martin J Bligh) writes:
>>>: In article <1993May25.124611.16769@taylor.uucp> mark@taylor.uucp (Mark A. Davis) writes:
>>>: > I would suggest that when the new wordprocessor is being designed,
>>>: > that PCL become part of it!
>>>:
>>>: The ideal solution would seem to me to create another device in /dev,
>>>: takes a postscipt print job, and automatically invokes Ghostscript on it,
>>
>>>Why would it have to be a device? Seems to me that it would be easier to
>>>make an if filter in your printcap entry for the printer instead.
>>
>>Actually, what I had in mind was a Postscript to PCL-5 conversion rather than
>>Ghostscript's Postscript to raster conversion. It sounds like it would
>>work.... had anyone ever seen anything like this?
>It might work on simple output, but graphics (as opposed to fonts) would have
>to be rasterized regardless --- and you're in trouble if someone uses a 4-on-1
>page compressor or something like that.
True, but I would say most documents are all text, or nearly all text. Using
Ghostscript would convert the whole page into 300dpi raster, which would take
about 7 minutes to print to an HP-Laserjet IIID at 19200 baud (I timed it a
while ago). One good thing about raster, though, no problems with fonts!
-- /--------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Mark A. Davis | Lake Taylor Hospital | Norfolk, VA (804)-461-5001x431 | | Sys.Administrator| Computer Services | mark@taylor / mark@taylor.UUCP | \--------------------------------------------------------------------------/