RE: UNIX PostScript (Was: Distiller Trivia)

[Dmitri Yunov <yudmi@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hello.
==============
I know only two areas where FrameMaker uses few PS Level 2 and 2 features.
Firstly it is CJK font embedding to PS and didderent types of its embedding.
TrueType Type 42 embedding and OpenType CFF CID emnedding also is possible
in PS Level 2 or 3 only.

Secondly, it is the embedding of PS/EPS/PDF with Level 2 or 3 features that
were linked to FM document, into the final FM PS file.

FrameMaker has no until even one byte of own passive or active support of
OpenType fonts that Dov referenced, so I did't understand this topic.
Probably there was the indirect reference to Framemaker 7 features that is
already in beta now, according to public inet rumors.

In general we can see the bias and longing for to drop in full the Adobe
support in UNIX for up-to-date and new applications in the nearest future
with the hot slogan to save our money and to buy Intel/AMD Windows 2000
Workstations.
This is a very vexatious symptom and alarm I did see last ten yeas.

For any who're interesting - say, new Sun Blade 100 with Ultra Sparc II 500
Mz proc has a cost less U$1000 (about U$950). Sun Solaris OS is FREE for
commercial or non-commercial use until you have more than 8 processors in
your machine. Visit www.sun.com, section "Sun Store" and "Products =>
Solaris OS" please.

It seems any Frame user who is a defender of Apple hardware/software
solutions would find many interesting in this topic too.. 

Dm.



-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Michanek
To: framers@omsys.com
Cc: 'Dov Isaacs'
Sent: 22.03.02 21:37
Subject: RE: UNIX PostScript (Was: Distiller Trivia)

(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.

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