RE: UNIX PostScript (Was: Distiller Trivia)

[Dov Isaacs <isaacs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thomas,

I thought that I had answered your questions, but I'll try again.

SIMPLY STATED, if you have an existing FrameMaker / PDF workflow in the
UNIX environment that produces acceptable results for you, there is not
going to be any significant advantage to moving to Windows. The only
advantage would come if you need better interoperability with other
application programs, newer font technology, etc.

As Lee Richardson indicated in his response to you, the generated PostScript
from FrameMaker UNIX is simpler and is PostScript Level 1. For the features
available to you from FrameMaker UNIX, the differences in the resultant 
PDF file created from such PostScript (as opposed to the PostScript that 
would have been generated under Windows from the same document) will be minor.
Depending upon the document content, the intermediate PostScript will likely,
but not necessarily, be more compact from UNIX, but that does not usually
translate into more compact, simpler, or better PDF. The name "Distiller"
came from the fact that the software "distills" PostScript down to the
bare essentials, the marking operations for text, vectors, and rasters
and the attributes associated with same. Thus, the relative size of
two PostScript files input to Distiller is not necessarily maintained
in the relative size of the resultant PDF files.

BOTTOM LINE ... For what YOU describe as your workflow and needs,
UNIX is perfectly fine. Don't spend any time or effort concerning 
yourself as to whether Windows would be better or worse.

        - Dov



At 3/22/2002 10:37 AM, Thomas Michanek wrote:
>(I noticed that Dov copies his replies to the FrameUsers lists.
> Perhaps it would be a good idea if someone on Free Framers
> forwarded this posting to the FrameUsers list.)
>
>> HOWEVER, that is very different from encouraging someone using
>> FrameMaker under Windows to shell out (pun intended) many, many,
>> many, many dollars (euros / pesos / shekels / whatever) to buy
>> a proprietary UNIX workstation, a UNIX FrameMaker license, a
>> UNIX Acrobat license, etc. simply for the privilege of producing
>> FrameMaker PostScript.
>
>For the record, this is *not* what I meant. I said:
>"if you have the choice to produce PDF files from FM on UNIX or
> from FM on Windows ..."
>meaning that *if* you already have access to both FM on UNIX and
>Windows, you should be aware of the benefits of using UNIX. This
>assumes you don't use any Windows-specific features.
>
>> With FrameMaker, the advantages of keeping PDF creation entirely on
>> Windows as opposed to UNIX are several:
>> (1) Full support for TrueType and OpenType fonts.
>
>Yes, but this is mainly a consequence of FM on UNIX not supporting
>such fonts to begin with. This is of course an important restriction,
>but isn't really relevant to the comparison of the generated PostScript
>code that I was looking for. Let's pretend that the FM documents only
>use Adobe Type 1 fonts. :-)
>
>> (3) Print subsystem support for arbitrary page sizes, multiple
>> resolutions, etc. in the generated PostScript.
>
>So you mean that FM on UNIX cannot support this in the PS code?
>(I haven't had any use for it, so I haven't checked whether there
>are any problems with page sizes, etc.)
>
>> (4) PostScript is optimized for PostScript 3 as opposed to 
>> PostScript Level 1.
>
>Not knowing the details of the differences between Level 1 and 3,
>could you give any examples of FM/PDF features that would be
>affected by this limitation? (Apart from Windows-specific features
>that wouldn't be available on UNIX to begin with.)
>
>I realize and acknowledge that the Level 1 PS code produced by FM
>on UNIX would not be suitable for all users and workflows. I'm now
>trying to understand what problems and limitations an FM user on UNIX
>could encounter when producing PS for distillation, compared to using
>FM on Windows. And the other way around.
>
>For instance, do you know of any possible reasons for the file size
>difference of PS/PDF files between the two platforms? Should I be
>worried about "losing" any information? (I haven't noticed any loss)
>
>Thanks in advance,
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>Thomas Michanek, Technical Writer
>IAR Systems AB, Sweden: http://www.iar.com
>mailto:Thomas.Michanek@iar.se
>Tel: +46 18 167800, Fax: +46 18 167838
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


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