Re: UNIX PostScript (Was: Distiller Trivia)

[Jeanette Feldhousen <jeanette@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 12:06 AM 3/22/02 +0100, Thomas Michanek wrote:
>> > 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 seen a big advantage distilling on UNIX--it would be interesting to see
if you could duplicate it. Try drawing line art in FrameMaker with the
thinnest
line width possible.  Then create postscript using FrameMaker on UNIX and 
FrameMaker on Windows, and distill the postscript files. When I do this,
the lines in the artwork printed to postscript on Windows are blobby, while
the lines that done in UNIX are much cleaner. Curves seem to show these
problems particularly well. I really had to look at the two PDF files 
side-by-side in order to see the difference, but now I really notice it on
Windows-generated PDFs.

For this reason we do all of our postscript creation for PDFs on UNIX
instead of 
Windows.

--Jeanette

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