CompuServe Messages

Donna, You said: >I've always felt that the export to CGM was a very good filter to use >for non-PS printers. What do you think of the CGM format? Have you >had problems with it? I have MANY problems with CGM in how it changes significant aspects of the drawing. To see some of what I mean, print "filigree" (on Business clip art) in Postscript and through CGM format. The differences are striking. The CGM graphic looks like its been melted in an oven. There is a whole host of printers that are (and are going to be) purchased strictly for their Windows (&TrueType) compatibility. HP is coming out with a rock-and-roll TrueType printer that's 600dpi. If Corel and Windows are really "perfect partners" then why can't you get what you see is what you get export from Corel except through Postscript? Also, TrueType is a language unto itself… has thought been given to 100% TrueType rendering of graphic images? IE, have a TrueType Graphic export that will work WYSIWYG on ALL Windows compatible printers. ==== ==== ======= == === ======= ========== ======== Thanks for listening. I hope this line of conversation gets through to the "right people" at Corel. I feel strongly that the first graphic product that gets to 100% Windows export compatibility (without requiring Postscript) will get the lion's share of business. … and have you noticed how few times Microsoft even MENTIONS Postscript in their documentation. Microsoft has it in for Postscript. If one thinks it will never happen because of installed base, look at what Word4Windows is doing to diehard WordPerfect users (of which I was one). Thanks again for listening, Mark Karaman