BPJ0%LEHIGH.BITNET@ibm1.cc.lehigh.edu (Bin) (03/11/89)
Hi folks, I was trying to draw circuits on Dpaint and the printout looked real shi**y! The fonts (topaz 8) was too large and jagged. Is there a way to load fonts from other disks from Dpaint? Also I thought Postscript was supposed to get rid of jaggies. But the Dpaint printout (using Iff2PS and CLAZ) showed a lot of jaggies-meriting the giggles of I*M users....AAaaaaaarrrrrggggggghhhh!) Help someone, BPJ0@Lehigh
Classic_-_Concepts@cup.portal.com (03/13/89)
You were asking about Loading other fonts with DPaint and getting rid
of jaggies with PostScript output .....
1. Loading fonts from other disks
This is pretty straightforward if you know how to use CLI.
If you have an UNprotected copy of DPaint, copy the ASSIGN
command onto the commands (c:) directory. Then either before
or after loading DPaint, type
ASSIGN FONTS: Mydisk:myfontdirectory
e.g.,
ASSIGN FONTS: Newfonts:font2
You'll have to pull down the DPaint screen to type this in
the CLI window. If the Workbench doesn't show when you drag
the DPaint screen down, select Workbench from the Prefs menu.
If there's no CLI window, click the Preferences icon, select
CLI ON, close Prefs, click on System icon, click on the CLI
icon, then type in the ASSIGN command.
2. Jaggies in PostScript
If you print bitmap fonts on a PostScript printer, they will
be smoother than on most dot-matrix printers (especially if
you select a smoothing algorithm) but they are *still* bitmap
fonts which are defined with dots rather than vectors, curves,
etc. The vector, or 'structured' (who came up with that odd
name, anyway, what makes them any more structured than dots?)
fonts in the PostScript format are defined quite differently
and loaded as PostScript 'dictionaries'.
Hope this info helps,
LadyHawke@cup.portal.comrminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (03/17/89)
In article <10596@louie.udel.EDU> BPJ0%LEHIGH.BITNET@ibm1.cc.lehigh.edu (Bin) writes: >I was trying to draw circuits on Dpaint and the printout looked real >shi**y! The fonts (topaz 8) was too large and jagged. Is there a way And it always will. Dpaint thinks that every printer in the universe has no more resolution than the Amiga CRT. It is a toy. A not very useful one. >was supposed to get rid of jaggies. But the Dpaint printout (using >Iff2PS and CLAZ) showed a lot of jaggies-meriting the giggles of I*M >users....AAaaaaaarrrrrggggggghhhh!) well, let's see, it was almost three years ago now that people began to bitch on c.s.a about the crummy printer output, esp. from Dpaint, and here we are three years letter with the same complaints. Frustrating. Dpaint is not something you use to draw things you want to look good. Iff2PS and CLAZ can't create information where none exists; by the time they get to the iff file there just isn't enough information there to make 300dpi color (or even 180dpi, or 120 ...) look like anything but garbage. Drop dpaint. Drop any program that works the way dpaint does. It looks like Professional Draw is almost the answer, judging by the review in a recent Amiga Sentry. Sorry, Bin, but as long as you use Dpaint you are screwed. ron
cmcmanis%pepper@Sun.COM (Chuck McManis) (03/18/89)
In article <10596@louie.udel.EDU> (Bin) wrote: >I was trying to draw circuits on Dpaint and the printout looked real >shi**y! The fonts (topaz 8) was too large and jagged. Is there a way In article <7203@super.ORG> (Ronald G Minnich) replies: >And it always will. Dpaint thinks that every printer in the universe >has no more resolution than the Amiga CRT. It is a toy. A not very >useful one. Not true Ron. While it is true that Dpaint is a raster painter (much like MacPaint in concept) there many simple ways to get acceptable output from it. One is to use a larger image. When I am producing something for printed output, I usually run DPaint with a 640 X 830 image (for 8 1/2 X 11 printouts) in monochrome or 4 colors. (Since in 144 dpi mode you can get a nice 2X2 dither for four shades of grey) Then draw my image and using some of the larger fonts like Helvetica 24 and print it out on my printer. Ever since 1.3 came out the printout is a) fast, and b) can be forced to "integer" scaling to eliminate those annoying artifacts. Output is now equivalent to a Mac under similar conditions. --Chuck McManis uucp: {anywhere}!sun!cmcmanis BIX: cmcmanis ARPAnet: cmcmanis@sun.com These opinions are my own and no one elses, but you knew that didn't you.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (03/18/89)
Now Ron. Didnt I flame you about this almost 3 years ago ?
First of all, its 75 dpi, not 30.
Second of all, if you make yer picture as big as possible (1K x 1K)
and print it out with iff2ps ane make it, say, half page, which
isnt bad for an illustration ona page that might have some
text on it, you have a 300 dpi output from dpaint.
To be completely fair, it's not entirely dpaints fault.
Say you make a ice picture with a nice font you picked up
from somewhere, oh, say you got ``Yagi Link'' (TM Letraset)
and you use it in a picture.
Now what do you EXEPECT dpaint to do with it when faced with the
challange of outputting it to a device with greater than 75 dpi ?
You have two choices: scale it (which is what it does cirrently)
or use a the font reseident in the printer. Except there are
about 500 amiga screen fonts (would make a great book) and at
best, 50 Postscripot fonts, and thats about it for printer
resident fonts ?
You think the mac does it any better with a font that aint
in the prnter ? Nope.
In conclusion, if you cant get by with making a BIG picture
and shrinking it down, use Pro-Draw or the like.
(although I suppose the issue of drawig jaggie free lines
is a much simpler one to resolve thatthat of jaggie free fonts)
--
``Quick Robin ! The Bat-Listings !''
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOVejkst@cisunx.UUCP (Eric J. Kennedy) (03/19/89)
In article <7203@super.ORG> rminnich@brainiac.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich) writes: >In article <10596@louie.udel.EDU> BPJ0%LEHIGH.BITNET@ibm1.cc.lehigh.edu (Bin) writes: >>I was trying to draw circuits on Dpaint and the printout looked real >>shi**y! The fonts (topaz 8) was too large and jagged. Is there a way >And it always will. Dpaint thinks that every printer in the universe >has no more resolution than the Amiga CRT. It is a toy. A not very >useful one. > Sorry, Bin, but as long as you use Dpaint you are screwed. Well, yes and no. What you say is true for the most part, but if all you have is dpaint, you're not *totally* handcuffed. What I've been doing is to create one bitplane 900x900 diagrams in dpaint II, and setting the new preferences options in 1.3 such that it the picture gets printed so that there is a one-to-one correspondence between screen pixels and printer pixels. This works reasonably well on a laser printer. There are lots of objections to this, yes, such as the picture will only be 3" by 3", you have to scroll around the picture as you're drawing it, and dpaint doesn't provide the convenient structured drawing tools available in something like Professional Draw. But for reasonably simple diagrams, it can be done, and the results aren't bad. -- Eric Kennedy ejkst@cisunx.UUCP
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (03/19/89)
Dpaint doesn't know what 30dpi is. Just draw on a larger scale... dp just loves bitmaps bigger than the screen. Then tell the printer.device to reduce it. (Print it pixel for pixel) What? You can't? That's not dpaint's fault. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' ...texbell!sugar!peter, or peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 'U`
rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (03/21/89)
In article <94598@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> cmcmanis@sun.UUCP (Chuck McManis) writes: >In article <7203@super.ORG> (Ronald G Minnich) replies: >Not true Ron. While it is true that Dpaint is a raster painter (much >like MacPaint in concept) there many simple ways to get acceptable >output from it. One is to use a larger image. When I am producing >something for printed output, I usually run DPaint with a 640 X 830 >image (for 8 1/2 X 11 printouts) in monochrome or 4 colors. (Since >in 144 dpi mode you can get a nice 2X2 dither for four shades of grey) But but but ... the amiga is a color machine. So, i have this nice color machine, i drop the money on my nice hp paintjet, and ... you tell me that i can get output if i use 4 colors or monochrome? On my eight-color-at-180dpi paintjet? Toss away half my colors? Why did i buy the amiga, then? It is frustrating that after three years now there is still no apparent way to get decent, non-jaggie color output. I have done a fair amount of fooling around with Dpaint I/II and even have done what you say, Chuck, and i still find the output atrocious. All I really would like is color output as clean as AmigaTeX's monochrome output. Yeah, i know, these things are hard to write. But three years later we only have one candidate? ack. No wonder nobody takes us seriously. I wish I had bought something other than a paintjet ... I really can't use it, since no Amiga programs can. Maybe i should buy a pc and get one of their draw programs? ron P.S. Oh, BTW, don't believe Aegis's claims about supporting color printers. (in Draw 2000). They lie.
rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (03/21/89)
In article <13442@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >Now Ron. Didnt I flame you about this almost 3 years ago ? Yes, you did. >First of all, its 75 dpi, not 30. Oh, how exciting. Well, now i am only 115 dpi shy of my Painjet. >Second of all, if you make yer picture as big as possible (1K x 1K) >and print it out with iff2ps ane make it, say, half page, which >isnt bad for an illustration ona page that might have some >text on it, you have a 300 dpi output from dpaint. Wow, that was easy. I stood on my head and put the picture on the driveway and it looked great. Now if i could only get everyone else to look at it that way. You forgot the aspect ratio compensation, right? Or do circles finally look like circles? Should Joe Average User have to go through this sort of thing? Why can't Joe Average User buy a decent draw program yet? >To be completely fair, it's not entirely dpaints fault. No, it isn't. I just hate Dpaint. I hate electronic arts. So I flamed them first. >In conclusion, if you cant get by with making a BIG picture >and shrinking it down, use Pro-Draw or the like. My main real complaint is that after you flamed me three years ago you didn't go out and write a decent draw program. You wrote postscript, after all, and you own 400,000 shares of Adobe stock. Therefore, you should have fixed us all up with a draw program worth something. >(although I suppose the issue of drawig jaggie free lines >is a much simpler one to resolve thatthat of jaggie free fonts) Somewhat. Ah, well, maybe by the time 1990 rolls around we will finally have a decent draw program. Meantime, i have color macdraw or fig or ... any one of a number of programs, none of which run on the Amiga ... sigh. ron
fc@lexicon.com (Frank Cunningham) (03/22/89)
So is there any paint program which when printing does the appropriate interpolation of the screen resolution to printer resolution ? Would I have time for a leisurely meal or just coffee while it runs, assuming a vanilla 2000 ? -- Frank C
scobb@bti.UUCP (Steve Cobb) (03/27/89)
In article <7328@super.ORG>, rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) writes: > In article <13442@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > >Now Ron. Didnt I flame you about this almost 3 years ago ? > Yes, you did. > >First of all, its 75 dpi, not 30. > Oh, how exciting. Well, now i am only 115 dpi shy of my Painjet. > >Second of all, if you make yer picture as big as possible (1K x 1K) > >and print it out with iff2ps ane make it, say, half page, which > >isnt bad for an illustration ona page that might have some > >text on it, you have a 300 dpi output from dpaint. > Wow, that was easy. I stood on my head and put the picture on the > driveway and it looked great. > Now if i could only get everyone else to look at it that way. > You forgot the aspect ratio compensation, right? Or do > circles finally look like circles? Should Joe Average User have > to go through this sort of thing? Why can't Joe Average User > buy a decent draw program yet? > >To be completely fair, it's not entirely dpaints fault. > No, it isn't. I just hate Dpaint. I hate electronic arts. So > I flamed them first. > >In conclusion, if you cant get by with making a BIG picture > >and shrinking it down, use Pro-Draw or the like. > My main real complaint is that after you flamed me three years ago Why in Hell would anybody use Dpaint to get hardcopy output. It was certainly never designed with that in mind. It's great for pretty screen shots - but that's it. Take a look at Express Paint. Epaint was definitly designed for hardcopy. There is a setting to define the aspect ratio (for circles and such) and a description in the manual of DPI, aspect ratio, and page size(in bits) for most known printers. Another big plus is Virtual page. You are no longer restricted by CHIP ram to define your page size. I can open a VP of 1400 * 1800 (HP PaintJet resolution) no problem - I do it all the time. Yes you do need extra memory to work with page sizes this large, but it can be done. Epaint also handles text quite well. There is a whole set of widgets and menu options for printer stuff - Like page centering, page expansion ... The final output on the Paint Jet comes pretty close to that of laser printers (all that and color too.) My only gripe (albeit minor) is that the manual is broken into 2 parts. The first part is the pre 3.0 manual. The second part is the 3.0 enhancements which is almost as large as the first part. The problem is that I never had Epaint before 3.0, so I have know way of knowing which one to look in for a particular feature. An updated integrated manual would be nice. Other than that the manual is quite complete. Hope this helps. Steve (Rasterfarian in training) Cobb Biomagnetic Technologies, inc. MAIL: 4174 Sorrento Valley Blvd. San Diego, CA 92121 ---------------------- PHONE: (619) 453-6300 x404 | Disclaim all words | UUCP: {ucsd, hplabs!hp-sdd}!ncr-sd!bti!scobb | Ye who read here | ----------------------
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (03/28/89)
In article <7328@super.ORG> rminnich@super.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich) writes: >In article <13442@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>First of all, its 75 dpi, not 30. >Oh, how exciting. Well, now i am only 115 dpi shy of my Painjet. Well it's a start. >>Second of all, if you make yer picture as big as possible (1K x 1K) >>and print it out with iff2ps ane make it, say, half page, which >>isnt bad for an illustration ona page that might have some >>text on it, you have a 300 dpi output from dpaint. >Wow, that was easy. I stood on my head and put the picture on the >driveway and it looked great. >Now if i could only get everyone else to look at it that way. > You forgot the aspect ratio compensation, right? Or do You can tweak the scale with iff2ps to make the aspect ratio anything you want. >circles finally look like circles? Should Joe Average User have >to go through this sort of thing? Why can't Joe Average User >buy a decent draw program yet? Beats me. But the issue you brought up was not ``why isnt there a DRAW program'' you said ``DPAINT IS USELESS'' >>To be completely fair, it's not entirely dpaints fault. >No, it isn't. I just hate Dpaint. I hate electronic arts. So >I flamed them first. Faultless logic even if the premises are open to suspicion. >>In conclusion, if you cant get by with making a BIG picture >>and shrinking it down, use Pro-Draw or the like. >My main real complaint is that after you flamed me three years ago >you didn't go out and write a decent draw program. I actually started, but then some bastard turned me onto USENET c'mon little boy, just read one article, one article became 3 3 became 40 more newsgroups, flames, net.parties. My life is a shambles and the program is nowhere nearer to completion than it was 2 years ago. >Ah, well, maybe by the time 1990 rolls around we will finally >have a decent draw program. Meantime, i have color macdraw >or fig or ... any one of a number of programs, none of which >run on the Amiga ... sigh. Thats a valid complaint. Saying Dpaint is useless isn't It does what it does very well. Plus you still havnt adressed the question I raised in a previous post on this subject: what do you expect your printer to print when you have a 24 point font in your drawing. Either it has to have a 92 point font available to it to render your picture properly or it has to replicate pixels with all the nasty artifacts that entails. Dpaint is a raster based paint program. Your complaint that it makes a poor object oriented draw program doesnt make much sense. Maybe you should try Pro-Draw ? The text is SLOOOOOOOOW but at least it WILL do what you want it to. Eventually. -- Keep out of the reach of children richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV
rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (03/29/89)
In article <13835@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >You can tweak the scale with iff2ps to make the aspect ratio anything >you want. IFF2PS can't drive a paintjet. iff2ps doesn't come with Deluxe Paint. It seems that every solution I have seen to using deluxe paint involves hunting around for some public domain goodie and and hoping that somehow you can get printed output that looks like something. Tell me what you will, but MacPaint output to an Imagewriter looks better than DeluxePaint to almost anything- unless you are willing to do a *lot* of screwing around. Why is this? I dunno. Why is this after *3 years*? I dunno. I think it is your fault. :-) >Thats a valid complaint. Saying Dpaint is useless isn't It does what >it does very well. Well, I guess you are right, it does what it does ... well, ok maybe. Fact is that Amiga people always end up stacking dpaint up against the competition. That's not fair, i know, but that is what happens. And we always seem to lose. >Plus you still havnt adressed the question I raised in a previous >post on this subject: what do you expect your printer to print >when you have a 24 point font in your drawing. Either it has to have >a 92 point font available to it to render your picture properly >or it has to replicate pixels with all the nasty artifacts that >entails. Yeah, but Richard, I don't even want that much. Neither did the original poster. He probably drew, maybe, a box or a triangle, and noticed that when he printed the triangle it looked like sh*t. As did lots of people three years ago. For drawing and printing the most basic pictures dpaint fails. ron
riley@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) (03/29/89)
[doesn't any part of the uncivilized world get netnews?] In article <7564@super.ORG> rminnich@super.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich) writes: >In article <13835@gryphon.COM> richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: >>You can tweak the scale with iff2ps to make the aspect ratio anything >>you want. >IFF2PS can't drive a paintjet. iff2ps doesn't come with Deluxe Paint. >It seems that every solution I have seen to using deluxe paint involves >hunting around for some public domain goodie and and hoping that >somehow you can get printed output that looks like something. >Tell me what you will, but MacPaint output to an Imagewriter looks >better than DeluxePaint to almost anything- unless you are willing >to do a *lot* of screwing around. Why is this? I dunno. Why is this >after *3 years*? I dunno. I think it is your fault. :-) MacPaint works with the Imagewriter right out of the box because the Macintosh only supports two printers. Supporting a lot of printers costs you some complexity. Despite that, you can get good looking output from DPaint without a lot of screwing around. Prior to 1.3, it was harder, and it was DPaint's fault for not allowing a decent amount of control over the printer device parameters--so you needed something like Andy Finkel's "Control" program which allows you to intercept and modify the DumpRPort() call from DPaint. With the improved printer drivers and preferences in 1.3, you can get good looking output (well, at least competitive with MacPaint on a Imagewriter) fairly easily--you just have to understand the options in preferences and how they interact. THIS IS NOT HARD. You may have to print out a few pages with different options to see how they interact with your particular printer, but once you've done it once, it's done. The Amiga does need better postscript support, and Commodore and third parties are going to have address this in a serious way, and soon. Commodore did a great job in 1.3 addressing most of the complaints about printer support; I expect they are at least thinking about postscript support for some later release. >>Thats a valid complaint. Saying Dpaint is useless isn't It does what >>it does very well. >Well, I guess you are right, it does what it does ... well, ok maybe. >Fact is that Amiga people always end up stacking dpaint up against >the competition. That's not fair, i know, but that is what happens. >And we always seem to lose. Do not. I'll take DPaint over most of the Mac paint programs any day. Comparing it to a Draw program obviously isn't fair, which seems to be what you're doing. If so, I can only echo Richard--DPaint isn't a structured graphics editor, it's a bitmap editor. If you want a draw program, don't look at DPaint. We do need a good draw program, and we need some hybrids--things that will let you do structured graphics on top of a bitmap. But don't expect DPaint to do it all. >Yeah, but Richard, I don't even want that much. Neither did the >original poster. He probably drew, maybe, a box or a triangle, >and noticed that when he printed the triangle it looked like sh*t. >As did lots of people three years ago. For drawing and printing >the most basic pictures dpaint fails. One more time. DPaint is an excellent bitmap/pixel editor. You can do a lot of nice things with it, but it has limitations (and features!) that are inherent to a paint program. If you want a draw program, complain about the lack of draw programs, don't complain that dpaint isn't a draw program. DPaint is very good at what it was designed to do, and a lot of people get a lot of utility out of out. But it's not going to solve everyone's problems. Get the right tool for job. This is getting suspiciously close to a flame, so I better shut up now before I violate my personal "no-flame" policy. -Dan Riley (riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu, cornell!batcomputer!riley) -Wilson Lab.
c152-cb@cory.Berkeley.EDU (Vince Lee) (03/30/89)
In article <7564@super.ORG> rminnich@super.UUCP (Ronald G Minnich) writes: >IFF2PS can't drive a paintjet. iff2ps doesn't come with Deluxe Paint. >It seems that every solution I have seen to using deluxe paint involves >hunting around for some public domain goodie and and hoping that >somehow you can get printed output that looks like something. >Tell me what you will, but MacPaint output to an Imagewriter looks >better than DeluxePaint to almost anything- unless you are willing >to do a *lot* of screwing around. Why is this? I dunno. Why is this >after *3 years*? I dunno. I think it is your fault. :-) I think you're confused about why dpaint output looks so bad. IFF2PS will do abolutely nothing to improve the print quality. The problem lies in the fact that you can't generate information where ne exists! Dpaint is a pixel paint program. No more information exists other than what you see on the screen. When you draw a line, it is stored as pixels; its identidy as a line is lost.. Thus, the only thing iff2ps can do is translate the iff bitmap to a postscript-format bitmap--Your lines won't look sharper, your text won't be any more readable. The macintosh screen resolution is smaller than the Amigas. Thus, dpaint pictures SHOULD look better than macpaint. They usually don't. Why? 1) Bad fonts. The standard Amiga fonts are a joke. Try getting some good public domain fonts, or better yet, get a collection of mac fonts translated to amiga format. 2) The imagewriter resolution is keyed to be an integer multiple of the screen resolution (i think). This makes an ENORMOUS difference for text or pixel-thin lines. Since the amiga has no STANDARD printer (ie you get a choice) the printer device does fractional scaling to fit your picture on the page. To overcome this, go into 1.3 prefs and set scaling to an integer multiple before printing. I use 2-1 when printing a hires screen to my paintjet. You probably want smoothing on too. The difference is like night and day. The picture will be a little smaller than full page, but you can increase your page size to compensate. Hope this helps. There is no reason why dpaint output should be any worse than macpaint, since they face the same constraints to print quality: you can't print information that doesn't exist. In Hires, the amiga has more information...in color, even more! -vince
jmpiazza@sunybcs.uucp (Joseph M. Piazza) (03/31/89)
In article <7635@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) writes: >... MacPaint works with the Imagewriter right out of the box because the >Macintosh only supports two printers. Try at least six: Imagewritter I, II, & LQ (that's three right there); LaserWriter+ (and "old" LaserWriter -- that's four); the NT and NTX (five); and the non-Postscript LaserWriter IISC (six). I think the NT and NTX are similar enough to be considered the same though others may easily prove otherwise (and I'll believe them). I'm just trying to keeps the facts straight. Flip side, joe piazza --- In capitalism, man exploits man. In communism, it's the other way around. CS Dept. SUNY at Buffalo 14260 UUCP: ..!{ames,boulder,decvax,rutgers}!sunybcs!jmpiazza GEnie:jmpiazza BITNET: jmpiazza@sunybcs.BITNET Internet: jmpiazza@cs.Buffalo.edu
rminnich@super.ORG (Ronald G Minnich) (03/31/89)
In article <7635@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu> riley@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu (Daniel S. Riley) writes: >(concerning my complaints about DPaint) >Get the right tool for job. oh all right folks i give up. People seem to like Dpaint, i never will, so i will leave it at that. I did want to add one comment. I got my brother ComicSetter for his birthday. I have played with it just a little and run through the manual and ... sure it is for comics, but it is a pretty neat drawing tool in its own right. I have yet to see how it drives, e.g., paintjet though. But if you are looking for a draw program that allows you to mix bitmaps and structured objects take a look at this one. Don't be put off by the name. If ComicSetter can do a reasonable job of driving a paintjet i think i will get it for my own work. ron
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (04/01/89)
In article <4963@cs.Buffalo.EDU> jmpiazza@sunybcs.UUCP (Joseph M. Piazza) writes: >>... MacPaint works with the Imagewriter right out of the box because the >>Macintosh only supports two printers. > > Try at least six: Imagewritter I, II, & LQ (that's three right there); Very little difference. Counts as one printer. >LaserWriter+ (and "old" LaserWriter -- that's four); the NT and NTX (five); These are all essentially the same thing. I mean are you really gonna tell us that takng a LaserWriter and upgrading to the next version of PostScript and adding 32 fonts qualifies this as a ``different'' printer. Granted it's physically a different printer, but not different in the sense that an Epson MX and a TI Silent 700 are different. In this context ``Different'' means different resolutions, different command sets, etc. >and the non-Postscript LaserWriter IISC (six). Yes, this is actually a new printer. Make that THREE printers the Mac supports. -- Keep out of the reach of children richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOV