UNIX PostScript (Was: Distiller Trivia)

["Thomas Michanek" <thomas.michanek@xxxxxxxxx>]

> > When you use FM on UNIX, there you will have simple, deviceindependent
> > PS-ouput which you can use to produce your PDF-files. No trouble with all
> > this different drivers....
> 
> Unfortunately, what you consider a "feature" others might
> consider a severe liability. The "device independent" PostScript
> you refer to is Level 1 PostScript, optimized for nothing and
> unable to take advantage of features of particular PostScript
> devices when the PostScript is destined for a real printing
> device as opposed to the Distiller. 

If we confine the discussion to creating PostScript for use
with the Distiller to create PDF files, are there any serious
disadvantages or problems with the generic PostScript created
by FM on UNIX? Do you miss out on any Acrobat features?

I've created lots of PDFs from FM on UNIX and have never
encountered any problems at all, regardless if you use Save As
PDF or Print to PDF (which I think are identically implemented
on UNIX). This is in stark contrast to all the problems reported
by Windows users of FM. Personally, I think the generic PostScript
created by FM on UNIX solves more problems than it creates, and
I wish there was a similar implementation in Windows.

A related question: Those Adobe applications that in Windows generate
their own PostScript (without using the Windows GDI?), such as
PageMaker, how well suited or unsuited is their PostScript for
subsequent Distilling to PDF? Do the same problems, if any, show
up as you claim for FM on UNIX?


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thomas Michanek, FrameMaker/UNIX/MIF expert
Technical Writer, IAR Systems, Uppsala, Sweden
mailto:Thomas.Michanek@telia.com
http://go.to/framers/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@omsys.com **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **