#DTP programs & CG Fonts
5 messages in this thread
Lloyd,
I think that Gold Disk's thinking was that PP be used with PostScript and
so you could get DM proofs. What they looked like was not important.
And if the user was going to use DM printers, he should buy PageSetter
instead.
I'm not sure that this isn't STILL their thinking.
Malcolm
Malcom,
Pagesetter was not much better printing to dot matrix printers. Funny
thing is – NOW it is better. A "trickle down" benifit from Pro Page.
Version 1.0 was designed only for PostScript. Any other printing was
just a "tack on". I knew that. Every magazine reported it in their reviews.
I didn't buy it then for just that reason. Then when 1.1 (or was it 1.2?)
came out, they advertised claims like "much improved dot matrix printing"
through "improved printing routines" (or something to that effect). That is
when I purchased Pro Page. And discovered, much to my chagrin, that they
were describing what the "new" AmigaDOS 1.3 print routines would do for dot
matrix printing. Not acceptable.
If they had "stuck to their guns" and kept it a PostScript only program,
I would have had no quibble with them. I felt I had been "had", for the
above mentioned reasons. That is only my opinion however. BUT, if they were
going to add support for non-PostScript printers (to make the program more
salable), they should have done it better the FIRST time.
"Serious" DeskTop Publishing demands the use of PostScript printers, no
arguement. I got tired of fighting the different software packages and
finally bought a PostScript printer. NOW the PostScript alternatives are
very numerous. But a year ago or so you still had to look at about $3000
MINIMUM to get a PostScript printer. A LOT more people could afford HP type
lasers, or a DeskJet at the "low end". And those printers can do a very
credible job of DTP work, given the proper software. And those users were
being ignored, forced to print screen resolution fonts to their 300 DPI
printers. It was suggested they print their pages at FOUR TIMES the normal
size, and then photocopy the page at .25% to get an "apparent 300 DPI".
Yeah……
Anyway, now they BOTH print to non-PostScript printers in a much better
fashion. And produce more than acceptable output. A little late, but better
than nothing. At least many people won't have to try to scrimp and save for
[ MORE ]
Lloyd,
I can understand your chagrin certainly. But I note that Saxon (who started
out as PS only) are now (or will be) supplying a program for DM output.
Once again, it's for proofs. Course, there are proofs and proofs.
At Transactor, our proofs were done on a NEC that we got at dealer cost
($4,000). Now, however, I do proofs on a MPS-1000. Final is a 300dpi QMS or
a 600×600 Varityper (much better for duplicating).
I guess we both know that photoreduction doesn't cut it. That's why I do
actual size and like to go to the Varityper.
Malcolm
Malcom,
There are "proofs" and then there are "proofs". What Gold Disk was
hyping as "improved dot matrix output" looked amateurish, and wasn't usable
for anything other than a "proof" – assuming you had access to a PostScript
printer or typesetter for final output. The printouts weren't usable for
ANYTHING else – and *I* wouldn't have wanted to *show* them to anybody.
The output from PageStream THEN, and both Pro Page and PageStream NOW
are more than ACCEPTABLE for certain types of printing tasks – for those
without PostScript printers. With 300 DPI printers like the HP DeskJet and
HP LaserJet, the printouts can serve a great many more people. And they
still can be used for "proofing" purposes.
No, Screen fonts to a 300 DPI printer just don't cut it. Not even for
"proofs".
Lloyd
[ continuation ]
an expensive PostScript printer! Too late for me, however.
SOB……
;^)
Lloyd