Low end HP printers & OS X 10.6
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Rowland McDonnell on 1 May 2010 14:59 Simon Dobbs <simondobbs(a)froglet.net> wrote: > Rowland McDonnell wrote: > > > Ignorance is easy to understand and needs no forgiveness; but - erm - > > how come you can't cut? Select unwanted text, delete it, then replace > > with [snip] if you want to be polite and show where you've removed > > stuff. > > sorry Rowland, when I wrote 'inability' I was implying 'can't be bothered'. Ah - bone idleness. <grin> Fair enough. > Yes I am a lazy and bad example of the human species, and I smell, but, > frankly, I don't give a damn. Can't argue with that :-) Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 1 May 2010 16:59 Simon Dobbs <simondobbs(a)froglet.net> wrote: > forgive my ignorance, and my inability to cut a longish thread, but I thought > that Macs had now lost postsript as the printing file format of preference in > favour of the acrobat file format. The compositing of views is done in the same way PDF yes, which is a lot simpler than postscript. NeXT was postscript, but that involved paying adobe money, display PDF requires no money so they used that system. Compositing any view (PDF view, screen view or printer view) works in the same way. -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Rowland McDonnell on 1 May 2010 21:21 Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > Simon Dobbs <simondobbs(a)froglet.net> wrote: > > > forgive my ignorance, and my inability to cut a longish thread, but I > > thought that Macs had now lost postsript as the printing file format of > > preference in favour of the acrobat file format. > > The compositing of views is done in the same way PDF yes, which is a lot > simpler than postscript. Eh? Explain - I thought that the two were sufficiently similar that there wasn't a lot of difference in that line, except that PS has more programmability, which makes pdf safer. > NeXT was postscript, but that involved paying > adobe money, display PDF requires no money so they used that system. I thought that the reason Apple dropped Display PDF is because Adobe put the licence fee too high, and that Display PDF (being as much an Adobe product as PS, innit?) needed a licence paying whoever's using it. > Compositing any view (PDF view, screen view or printer view) works in > the same way. Macs don't use Display PDF, do they? Rowland. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: Woody on 2 May 2010 07:50 Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: > > > Simon Dobbs <simondobbs(a)froglet.net> wrote: > > > > > forgive my ignorance, and my inability to cut a longish thread, but I > > > thought that Macs had now lost postsript as the printing file format of > > > preference in favour of the acrobat file format. > > > > The compositing of views is done in the same way PDF yes, which is a lot > > simpler than postscript. > > Eh? Explain - I thought that the two were sufficiently similar that > there wasn't a lot of difference in that line, except that PS has more > programmability, which makes pdf safer. PDF is a superset, it has quite a few more features but as you say, without the programmability, which makes it easier (and more importantly faster) to impliment. > > > NeXT was postscript, but that involved paying > > adobe money, display PDF requires no money so they used that system. > > I thought that the reason Apple dropped Display PDF is because Adobe put > the licence fee too high, and that Display PDF (being as much an Adobe > product as PS, innit?) needed a licence paying whoever's using it. No, pdf is an open standard (but created by adobe) that requires no license to use, postscript is a licensed product of adobe that requires a license to use, that is why all printers didn't do postscript. > > Compositing any view (PDF view, screen view or printer view) works in > > the same way. > > Macs don't use Display PDF, do they? They do. Have a look at the section on quartz on there OSX overview page: <http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/graphics-and-animation.html > There is a lot more info in the developer section, that is just a confirmation. Basically the graphics in windows is cached in PDF images (which is why OSX uses PDF naturally as it does), whereas in NeXT, graphics were stored as PS code, which was executed when it needed to draw, which is a lot slower. ahh, here, from the original reviews of the technical previews of OSX: <http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/macos-x-gui/macos-x-gui-4.html> -- Woody www.alienrat.com
From: Simon Dobbs on 2 May 2010 12:54 On Sun, 2 May 2010 12:50:58 +0100, Woody wrote (in article <1jhv72m.1rcvx0y5juxwfN%usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk>): > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote: > >> Woody <usenet(a)alienrat.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Simon Dobbs <simondobbs(a)froglet.net> wrote: >>> >>>> forgive my ignorance, and my inability to cut a longish thread, but I >>>> thought that Macs had now lost postsript as the printing file format of >>>> preference in favour of the acrobat file format. >>> >>> The compositing of views is done in the same way PDF yes, which is a lot >>> simpler than postscript. >> >> Eh? Explain - I thought that the two were sufficiently similar that >> there wasn't a lot of difference in that line, except that PS has more >> programmability, which makes pdf safer. > > PDF is a superset, it has quite a few more features but as you say, > without the programmability, which makes it easier (and more importantly > faster) to impliment. > > >> >>> NeXT was postscript, but that involved paying >>> adobe money, display PDF requires no money so they used that system. >> >> I thought that the reason Apple dropped Display PDF is because Adobe put >> the licence fee too high, and that Display PDF (being as much an Adobe >> product as PS, innit?) needed a licence paying whoever's using it. > > No, pdf is an open standard (but created by adobe) that requires no > license to use, postscript is a licensed product of adobe that requires > a license to use, that is why all printers didn't do postscript. > >>> Compositing any view (PDF view, screen view or printer view) works in >>> the same way. >> >> Macs don't use Display PDF, do they? > > They do. Have a look at the section on quartz on there OSX overview > page: > <http://developer.apple.com/technologies/mac/graphics-and-animation.html >> > There is a lot more info in the developer section, that is just a > confirmation. Basically the graphics in windows is cached in PDF images > (which is why OSX uses PDF naturally as it does), whereas in NeXT, > graphics were stored as PS code, which was executed when it needed to > draw, which is a lot slower. > > > ahh, here, from the original reviews of the technical previews of OSX: > <http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/macos-x-gui/macos-x-gui-4.html> > > > That's why I thought that macs used pdf as the page description language now- surely if all documents are rendered as pdf by the operating system, it is a simple step to use that as the page description to all printers
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: Sticky Bit Coming Unstuck Next: i7 MacBook Pros running hot |