chuq@plaid.UUCP (05/22/87)
Date: Tue, 19 May 87 22:13:00 GMT
I am also an avid user of Ventura on Compaq 386/130, but I have a couple
of questions that maybe someone using it has gotten around.
Not being sure of the correct terminology in typesetting, (I call it signature)
or it is also called 'bibling', I am having difficulty with the article flowing
correctly.
A scenerio might help.
Take 4 pieces of 8.5 x 11 paper, turn it in the landscape orientation, and fold
it in half. Now you have a 12 page booklet with the front cover being page 1
and the back cover being page 12. The second sheet will have page 10 on the
left side and page 3 on the right side.
Now to my problem. I want to start an article on page 3 and have it continue
on page 10. When you build frames for the text to flow into, and start the
article on page 3, then open another frame on page 10 (logically on the left)
to continue or complete the article, Ventura would have it backwards. The
article will start on page 10 and finish on page 3.
Anyone have an answer to this?
What I have done to get around this is really kludgy! I run the paper through
the laserjet 2 times, and build single sided pages 3 on right with a blank page
across, and page 10 on the left with a blank page across from it, then manually
feed the same sheet through twice. (Well!!! it works ((:-} )
Any help would be appreciated!
thanks
pete rourke
tulsa, ok
..ihnp4!okstate!{romed,pbox}!pete
$USR UNIX/C/Networking User Group
----------------------------------------
Submissions to: desktop%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop
Administrivia to: desktop-request%plaid@sun.com -OR- sun!plaid!desktop-request
Paths: {ihnp4,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,ucbvax}!sun
Chuq Von Rospach chuq@sun.COM [I don't read flames]
There is no statute of limitations on stupidityroseann@eeg.UUCP (White) (05/02/89)
I have a copy of ventura from a friend and I am having a hard time
getting it to run on my XT clone. One friend suggests that 512K ram
is too little to run the program. Someone else suggeted that they
could be copy protection on the disk. Yet the person who gave me the
copy had no problems making the copy. Please mail any helpful suggestions.
Jody Tomich
using RFW login
--
Roseann Fowler-White, Operations Manager, EEG Systems Laboratory
51 Federal St, rm 401, San Francisco, Ca 94107 (415) 957-1600, ext. 103
roseann@eeg.com postmaster@eeg.com {pacbell,lll-winken,ucsfcgl}!eeg!roseann anderson@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson, MACC) (05/03/89)
In article <629@eeg.UUCP>, roseann@eeg.UUCP (White) writes... ]I have a copy of ventura from a friend and I am having a hard time ]getting it to run on my XT clone. One friend suggests that 512K ram ]is too little to run the program. Someone else suggeted that they ]could be copy protection on the disk. Yet the person who gave me the ]copy had no problems making the copy. Please mail any helpful suggestions. Xerox reads the net, I think, if the legality of your copy could be an issue. VP is not copy-protected (thank god!). 512K is too little to run the program. ==Jess Anderson===Academic Computing Center=====Univ. Wisconsin-Madison===== | Work: Rm. 2160, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706, Ph. 608/263-6988 | | Home: 2838 Stevens St., 53705, 608/238-4833 BITNET: anderson@wiscmacc | ==ARPA: anderson@macc.wisc.edu========UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson==
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/03/89)
In article <629@eeg.UUCP> roseann@eeg.UUCP (White) writes: >I have a copy of ventura from a friend and I am having a hard time >getting it to run on my XT clone. One friend suggests that 512K ram >is too little to run the program. Someone else suggeted that they >could be copy protection on the disk. Yet the person who gave me the >copy had no problems making the copy. Please mail any helpful suggestions. Place the disk in the floppy drive, and then place the entire machine in your trash can. Buy a Sun-3/{60,80} or SPARCstation-1, and then buy Frame Maker. I haven't had any problems using Ventura like this. :-) Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) (05/03/89)
In article <2008@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: > Place the disk in the floppy drive, and then place the entire machine >in your trash can. Buy a Sun-3/{60,80} or SPARCstation-1, and then buy >Frame Maker. Maybe you haven't bothered to understand Ventura better. I've checked Frame Maker: Ventura on a fast AT leaves it in the dust i.t.o. sheer power and ease of use. A little less smug complacence would be helpful... the PC world has a lot to teach outfits like Sun. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You're never too old to have a happy childhood. ajay shah (213)745-2923 or sawant@nunki.usc.edu _______________________________________________________________________________
anderson@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson, MACC) (05/03/89)
In article <3719@nunki.usc.edu>, sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes... ]In article <2008@trantor.harris-atd.com> chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) writes: ]> Place the disk in the floppy drive, and then place the entire machine ]>in your trash can. Buy a Sun-3/{60,80} or SPARCstation-1, and then buy ]>Frame Maker. ]Maybe you haven't bothered to understand Ventura better. I've checked ]Frame Maker: Ventura on a fast AT leaves it in the dust i.t.o. sheer ]power and ease of use. ]A little less smug complacence would be helpful... the PC world has a ]lot to teach outfits like Sun. ]You're never too old to have a happy childhood. Great quote! Let's face it, the perfect tool is one that does the job for you while you take a nap. In the world of publishing there are no perfect tools. Ventura, PageMaker, Frame Maker and a couple others are middle-of-the-line products, after all. There are products that do more or do it better or do it faster on more advanced platforms, but in the world of ordinary publishing work for which they were designed, products like PageMaker on either Mac or PC platforms or VP on PCs (I have no Frame Maker experience) are very powerful tools. The "my thingie can beat up your thingie" stance is not helpful here because it's irrelevant. ==Jess Anderson===Academic Computing Center=====Univ. Wisconsin-Madison===== | Work: Rm. 2160, 1210 West Dayton St., Madison WI 53706, Ph. 608/263-6988 | | Home: 2838 Stevens St., 53705, 608/238-4833 BITNET: anderson@wiscmacc | ==ARPA: anderson@macc.wisc.edu========UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson==
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/03/89)
In article <3719@nunki.usc.edu> sawant@nunki.usc.edu (Abhay Sawant) writes: >Maybe you haven't bothered to understand Ventura better. I've checked >Frame Maker: Ventura on a fast AT leaves it in the dust i.t.o. sheer >power and ease of use. > >A little less smug complacence would be helpful... the PC world has a >lot to teach outfits like Sun. There was a :-) on that post, in case you missed it... I have seen Ventura, and found it lacking with respect to Frame Maker. A woman on the floor below was struggling to produce a newsletter with Ventura and was pretty much tearing her hair out. We helped her move to Frame and she is much happier and more elegantly coiffed. The biggest drawback to any PC based tool is the tiny screen. I'd go blind trying to dummy up several pages of text with it all Greeked out in a tiny font. Any Sun tool, Frame or Publisher or whatever, at least benefits from a large bitmapped screen with square pixels. Of course, you could always drop a few thousands bucks to outfit your PC with a big monitor, but then you begin to approach workstation prices. Especially if you add all the builtins of the workstation world: ethernet, 4 or 8 megs of memory, 140 or 327 meg disk, multitasking operating system, NFS, a suite of software development tools, etc. I sat in on a meeting of the Harris Ventura Users Group and found it quite amusing. The problems these people have with the PC world is astounding. This meeting's discussion centered around some addin board which allowed them to have more than 640K available to Ventura through some hacked MMU which plugged into the CPU socket on your motherboard. What a harrassment! Of course, this made Ventura run better, but wasn't completely compatible with other PC software. One woman complained that her printer didn't seem to print certain characters in her documents. No one knew about that one. Other people couldn't get their printers consistently configured to print all the time. There was a demonstration of importing a bitmapped image into Ventura, with some confusion over a variety of image file formats and which could or could not be read. In short, I got the impression that these people's lives were a continuous stream of random, confusing problems, most of which can be traced to the difficulty of using many partially compatible products on a PC. In the Sun world, we plugged our printer in, and it worked correctly. Forever. I never even read the Frame Maker manual for about six months after getting the tool; it was that simple to use. I don't worry about too little memory; my machine is a real computer, with virtual memory. I can talk directly to thousands of other machines over the net without having to move files to floppy; in fact, we do all editing/markup/composition of our internal Sun newsletter directly over the net, with articles sent in via e-mail or through NFS. My biggest headache is that our HP ScanJet scanner must be hooked to a PC on our net, and the odds on that machine working for two consecutive days are about 50-50. My office mate and I recently set a new record for ourselves: we produced an eight page newsletter, complete with imbedded graphics and art, in just under 90 minutes. This included all of the layout work, most of the proofing and markup, and all the editorial content decisions. The copy was already written. We each sat at a Sun, and via NFS, worked on different parts of the newsletter simultaneously. Then we used Frame to pull all the pieces into our master dummy. After 90 minutes, we pulled camera-ready pages out of our LaserWriter, and walked them over to the print center. Of course, while all this is going on, we can still move to other windows on our desktop to execute a Unix command or read mail or news. In our last issue, for example, we were dithering/halftoning several color images in one window while fooling with other components of the newsletter. The machine (a Sun-3/60) has enough power to support such compute intensive tasks as digital image processing without any noticable lag in interactive response. To recoin a phrase: you'll take my workstation away when you pry my cold, dead fingers from the keyboard! Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
cem@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Malloy) (05/03/89)
Chuckie scribbles: > Place the disk in the floppy drive, and then place the entire machine > in your trash can. Buy a Sun-3/{60,80} or SPARCstation-1, and then > buy Frame Maker. I haven't had any problems using Ventura like this. BIGOT!
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (05/03/89)
In article <629@eeg.UUCP>, roseann@eeg.UUCP (White) writes: > I have a copy of ventura from a friend and I am having a hard time > getting it to run on my XT clone. One friend suggests that 512K ram > is too little to run the program. ... Ventura 2.0 needs 640K without TSRs. Ventura 1.1 may work with less. I wouldn't admit in public to violating the copyright laws, if I were you. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi I believe in absolute freedom of the press. I believe that freedom of the press is the only protection we have from the abuses of power of the church, from the abuses of power of the state, from the abuses of power of the corporate body, and from the abuses of power of the press itself. Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.
cem@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Malloy) (05/04/89)
[lots of things deleted] > After 90 minutes, we pulled camera-ready pages out of our > LaserWriter, and walked them over to the print center. Camera-ready pages? From a 300x300 D.P.I printer? Get real. No real printer in this country considers a 300x300 D.P.I Laser Printer camera-ready. It's good enough for in-house repro junk, but a Printer will not except anything less than 600x600 D.P.I. to produce decent quality. C. E. Malloy, III AT&T Bell Labs att!ihlpf!cem PostScript(\tm: Add some :-)'s if you want.
chuck@melmac.harris-atd.com (Chuck Musciano) (05/05/89)
In article <8397@ihlpf.ATT.COM> cem@ihlpf.UUCP (45261-Malloy,C.E.) writes: >> After 90 minutes, we pulled camera-ready pages out of our >> LaserWriter, and walked them over to the print center. > >Camera-ready pages? From a 300x300 D.P.I printer? Get real. No >real printer in this country considers a 300x300 D.P.I Laser Printer >camera-ready. It's good enough for in-house repro junk, but a Printer >will not except anything less than 600x600 D.P.I. to produce decent >quality. Guess again. Check out the last three proceedings from the International Conference on Parallel Processing. Any paper with my name on it was produced, camera-ready, from our 300 dpi LaserWriter. Still not satisfied? Find a copy of IEEE Micro, December 1987. Look at "Effective Implementation of a Parallel Language on a Multiprocessor". Every figure, and all the indented code in Courier and Courier Bold, was shot straight from our 300 dpi originals. The publisher couldn't set the text to match our indenting, and the original copy, and all the figures, were deemed more than acceptable by their production department. The point is moot anyway, since if we had a Lino, I'd be pulling 1200 or 2450 dpi camera-ready copy out of the printer. Although the printing time would be longer, the production time is unchanged, and that was point of my posting. Chuck Musciano ARPA : chuck@trantor.harris-atd.com Harris Corporation Usenet: ...!uunet!x102a!trantor!chuck PO Box 37, MS 3A/1912 AT&T : (407) 727-6131 Melbourne, FL 32902 FAX : (407) 727-{5118,5227,4004}
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (05/05/89)
In article <8397@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, cem@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Malloy) writes: > > [lots of things deleted] > > > After 90 minutes, we pulled camera-ready pages out of our > > LaserWriter, and walked them over to the print center. > > Camera-ready pages? From a 300x300 D.P.I printer? Get real. No > real printer in this country considers a 300x300 D.P.I Laser Printer > camera-ready. It's good enough for in-house repro junk, but a Printer > will not except anything less than 600x600 D.P.I. to produce decent > quality. 300 x 300 dpi is quite adequate for printing if you use 12 point type and larger, particularly in the highly legible type famlies. For example, New Century Schoolbook or Bookman with Avant Garde or Helvetica in normal postscript output. Alternately, Lucida, Lucida Sans, Charter, and the Stone famlies can be used in even smaller sizes with good reproduction. The basic problem comes with the insistance of 10 point Times Roman with a 6.5 inch justified line length. This was the standard used with troff for typesetting. At 300 x 300, Times Roman looks terrible. And a line length of 6.5 inches makes it unreadable even when typeset. The maximum line length for easy readability should be 1-1/2 to 2 lower case alphabets or 39 to 52 characters. It is also easier to read ragged right than justified. So, if you start out with a type face that reproduces poorly at 300 x 300, make the size too small, make the lines too long, and generally do everything you can to make your text unreadable, you can expect poor results. I understand that Psychology Today did a survey on written communication a few years ago that showed people thought the same subject presented in a more obtuse style was more significant -- if it was easy to read, it couldn't be important. For those who are serious about reproduction, create your pages oversize at about 129% (for 5-1/2by 8-1/2 pages) and then have them reduced to 77% when the plates are made. This increases your resolution to about 400 x 400 with virtually no cost. For those who are serious about communicating, use legible type families, larger type, correct length lines, and ragged right. As a final comment, I have noticed that there aren't any real small printers left in this country, only franchise operations. They not only don't nkow how to adjust their presses, they are also giving out bad advice about desktop publishing. So, if you want a real printer, I suggest that you find a web operator and print a minimum of 100,000 copies. For short run, you're better off on an office copier than with almost any local press operator. (My appologies to the NJ Association of Quick Printers :-)) Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi I believe in absolute freedom of the press. I believe that freedom of the press is the only protection we have from the abuses of power of the church, from the abuses of power of the state, from the abuses of power of the corporate body, and from the abuses of power of the press itself. Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.
cs132085@brunix (Gregory Brail) (05/05/89)
In article <1312@lzfme.att.com> jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: > >300 x 300 dpi is quite adequate for printing if you use 12 point >type and larger, particularly in the highly legible type >famlies. I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but I've found that 300X300 dpi output looks noticably less clear than higher-resolution output when printed on any paper better than newsprint. Just look at the ads in the back of computer magazines -- it's pretty easy to tell which ones are printed on LaserWriters, even if they're well-designed and laid out. Needless to say, they usually aren't. On glossy paper, 300X300 dpi type just doesn't make it. On coarser-grade papers, it's sometimes OK, however. >The basic problem comes with the insistance of 10 point Times Roman >with a 6.5 inch justified line length. This was the standard used >with troff for typesetting. This is precisely why I hate troff. Even if you could use a different font easily, it would be OK. They don't call it "Times Romanoff" for nothing. >For those who are serious about reproduction, create your pages >oversize at about 129% (for 5-1/2by 8-1/2 pages) and then have them >reduced to 77% when the plates are made. This increases your >resolution to about 400 x 400 with virtually no cost. Excellent suggestion. You can even print at 200% and reduce by 50%. This looks even better. -Greg -------------------- Greg Brail st601396@brownvm.brown.edu (note: please use this address)
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (05/08/89)
In article <5679@brunix.UUCP>, cs132085@brunix (Gregory Brail) writes: > In article <1312@lzfme.att.com> jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) writes: > > > >300 x 300 dpi is quite adequate for printing if you use 12 point > >type and larger, particularly in the highly legible type > >famlies. > > I hate to sound like an old fuddy-duddy, but I've found that 300X300 > dpi output looks noticably less clear than higher-resolution output > when printed on any paper better than newsprint. Just look at the ads > in the back of computer magazines -- it's pretty easy to tell which > ones are printed on LaserWriters, even if they're well-designed and > laid out. Needless to say, they usually aren't. On glossy paper, > 300X300 dpi type just doesn't make it. On coarser-grade papers, it's > sometimes OK, however. I forgot to mention that some of the special super-smooth papers designed for laser printers make a big dfference. I use the Hammermil Laser Plus for masters (the one with the wax barrier). A photomicrograph of the toner particles on regular paper looks like spilled creosote on a bunch of logs (the paper fibers). A similar photomicrograph of the special laser papers looks looks more like bird droppings on a pile of twigs -- i.e. the print quality is about twice as good. Incidently, a number of magazines have indicated that some brands of special laser paper are no better than regualr paper, so look at the results under a microscope if you can before investing heavily in paper. > >For those who are serious about reproduction, create your pages > >oversize at about 129% (for 5-1/2by 8-1/2 pages) and then have them > >reduced to 77% when the plates are made. This increases your > >resolution to about 400 x 400 with virtually no cost. > > Excellent suggestion. You can even print at 200% and reduce by 50%. > This looks even better. > The 129% figure is used specifically because this is as large as you can make a 5-1/2 by 8-1/2 page and still get it to fit on an 8-1/2 by 11 page. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi I believe in absolute freedom of the press. Pax Probiscus! Please do not email anything that requires a response outside AT&T. I receive email okay, but can rarely send a reply sucessfully. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.
marco@buengc.BU.EDU (Marco Zelada) (05/10/89)
In article <629@eeg.UUCP> roseann@eeg.UUCP (White) writes: >I have a copy of ventura from a friend and I am having a hard time >getting it to run on my XT clone. One friend suggests that 512K ram >is too little to run the program. Someone else suggeted that they >could be copy protection on the disk. Yet the person who gave me the >copy had no problems making the copy. Please mail any helpful suggestions. > >Jody Tomich > I think that your problem could be solved by installing less printer driver buffers on the version you are running at home. Drop me a line and I will give you more details on this. -- ______________________________________________________________________________ | Name: Marco Zelada, VLSI CAD Engineer | Tel: 617 353 9882, Fax: 353 6322 | | Lab: VLSI CAD Laboratory | E-mail: marco@buengc.bu.edu | | Dept: Electrical & Computer Engineering | US-Mail: 44 Cummington St. | | Org: Boston University | Boston MA, 02215 | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
mcdonald@UXE.CSO.UIUC.EDU ("J.D. McDonald ") (05/16/89)
>> After 90 minutes, we pulled camera-ready pages out of our >> LaserWriter, and walked them over to the print center. >Camera-ready pages? From a 300x300 D.P.I printer? Get real. No >real printer in this country considers a 300x300 D.P.I Laser Printer >camera-ready. It's good enough for in-house repro junk, but a Printer >will not except anything less than 600x600 D.P.I. to produce decent >quality. I'll agree that 300 d.p.i. is not really publication quality. But there seems to be another point too. The output that comes out of either HP LaserJets using the regular HP Times-like font, or the Times like fonts from Bitstream, or the output from an Apple Laserwriter using the built-in fonts, or the blurbs I got from our Printing Division which were printed on a Linotronic 300 (1270 or 2540 d.p.i. - who cares) just doesn't look like a plain ordinary printed BOOK. Somehow, however good they look, they just don't look "right", by which I mean look like any ordinary high quality (technical) book printed before, say, 1982. The letter shapes just don't look "ordinary" and the spacings don't look "right". Take, for example, "The C Programming Language" by Brian W. Kernighan and Dennis M. Ritchie, Prentice Hall 1978, or "Modern Optical Engineering" by Warren J. Smith, McGraw-Hill 1966. These look perfectly "ordinary", though the "quality" of the Smith book is only fair - there are broken serifs, uneven letter densities, and uneven baselines everywhere. I don't know how the Smith book was done (metal type?), but K&R was "set in Times Roman and Courier 12 by the authors, using a Graphic Systems phototypesetter..." or, for the Second Edition, "an Autologic APS-5 phototypesetter". I am converting my lecture notes to a "book" (or maybe, as two publishers have expressed some interest, a book). I wanted it to LOOK like a book. After looking at various alternatives, I have gone to Latex. On either an HP LaserJet or an Apple Laserwriter, using the Computer Modern fonts, it does indeed LOOK like a perfectly ordinary book. The text looks a bit low-quality indeed, but actually no worse than Smith, though for different reasons. Figures on the laser printers look simply awful, no doubt about that at all, due to the jaggies. It is very easy to read (I am using 11 point type with a text width of 4.85 inches). Now for the question - WHY do the typical laser printers using the typical PC tools not look like books? Why have the typical fonts used been designed to look different from typical book fonts, even on the Linotronic. Is it intentional, and if so why? Are there ways to make things look like a book using desktop publishing tools? (I should add that TeX is really the correct way for me, as this thing is stuffed to the gills with complicated equations, at which TeX is really good.) Doug McDonald (mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu)
jwi@lzfme.att.com (Jim Winer @ AT&T, Middletown, NJ) (05/16/89)
In article <8905160047.AA12857@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@UXE.CSO.UIUC.EDU ("J.D. McDonald ") writes: > > I'll agree that 300 d.p.i. is not really publication quality. > > But there seems to be another point too. The output that comes out > of either HP LaserJets using the regular HP Times-like font, > or the Times like fonts from Bitstream, or the output from an > Apple Laserwriter using the built-in fonts, or the blurbs I got > from our Printing Division which were printed on a Linotronic > 300 (1270 or 2540 d.p.i. - who cares) just doesn't look like > a plain ordinary printed BOOK. Somehow, however good they look, > they just don't look "right", by which I mean look like any > ordinary high quality (technical) book printed before, say, 1982. > The letter shapes just don't look "ordinary" and the spacings > don't look "right". Take, for example, "The C Programming > ... > Now for the question - WHY do the typical laser printers using the > typical PC tools not look like books? Why have the typical fonts > used been designed to look different from typical book fonts, > even on the Linotronic. Is it intentional, and if so why? Are there > ways to make things look like a book using desktop publishing tools? 1) Times Roman is a condensed typeface that was apparently designed for hot type (cast lead). It does not work well on laser printers at 300 x 300. It doesn't matter whose typefaces you use of even what size type you use if it's less than about 14 point. If you want readable type use Century Schoolbook or Bookman in the *conventional* postscript faces or Charter or Lucida which have been specially designed for low resolution (300dpi) printers. 2) If you are using Ventura (as the subject line says), you need to make sure that the kerning is turned on. In Ventura 2.0 it must be turned on in each tag name, and in the Chapter menu as well. (Chapter is an override.) If it is off in either place, you will get base spacing but no letter pair kerning. 3) Other PC tools have other problems. The primary need is to understand how to operate the tools that you are using. If you know how to get Tex, use it. But watch out for Times Roman -- it will be okay at 1200 dpi, but at 300dpi it's a lousy face. Jim Winer ..!lzfme!jwi I believe in absolute freedom of the press. Pax Probiscus! Sturgeon's Law (Revised): 98.89% of everything is drek (1.11% is peanut butter). Rarely able to send an email reply sucessfully. The opinions expressed here are not necessarily Those persons who advocate censorship offend my religion.
robert@hemingway.WEITEK.COM (Robert Plamondon) (05/18/89)
In article <8905160047.AA12857@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@UXE.CSO.UIUC.EDU ("J.D. McDonald ") writes: > > >But there seems to be another point too. The output that comes out >of either HP LaserJets using the regular HP Times-like font, >or the Times like fonts from Bitstream, or the output from an >Apple Laserwriter using the built-in fonts, or the blurbs I got >from our Printing Division which were printed on a Linotronic >300 (1270 or 2540 d.p.i. - who cares) just doesn't look like >a plain ordinary printed BOOK. Somehow, however good they look, >they just don't look "right", by which I mean look like any >ordinary high quality (technical) book printed before, say, 1982. Most manufacturers are cursed with ugly fonts. Times Roman is not a very attractive font in any implentation, and it looks very bad at 300 dpi. Furthermore, scalable fonts, such as Bitstream's Fontware-generated fonts and Adobe's PostScript fonts, always look worse than hand-tuned fonts. I find Bitstream's Goudy Old Style to be fairly attractive. In general, you should look at everybody's fonts and pick the ones that seem to fit your application best. I also recommend that you read the book, "The ABCs of typography," which is a good introduction to the uses of type. -- Robert -- Robert Plamondon robert@weitek.COM "No Toon can resist the old 'Shave and a Hair-Cut'"
don@eastern.FIDONET.ORG (Don O'Shaughnessy) (05/27/89)
> >camera-ready. It's good enough for in-house repro > junk, but a Printer > >will not except anything less than 600x600 D.P.I. to > produce decent > >quality. > I'll agree that 300 d.p.i. is not really publication > quality. > 300 (1270 or 2540 d.p.i. - who cares) just doesn't > look like > a plain ordinary printed BOOK. Somehow, however good > they look, > they just don't look "right", by which I mean look > like any > ordinary high quality (technical) book printed before, > say, 1982. What we have here is an object lesson in the evolution of taste. At one time, and not too long ago, phototypesetting was considered a cheap imitation - only hot metal typesetting was "real". Now, we face a further change in public taste. Not so much with the advent of the Linotronic, but with the desktop laser. The simple fact is that many publications (small publications, to be sure) use 300 dpi imaging quite effectively. The secret is in not trying to make it something that it's not. A skilled camera person will know that 300 dpi can be improved in the process of making printing negatives. The front-end work itself can aid in the process by using typefaces which are more forgiving in a 300 dpi environment. As for the look of books, that is as much what we have become used to as an issue where right or wrong has any meaning. As with any technology, as the use of 300 dpi imaging proliferates, it creates its own "right"ness. It becomes what people are used to seeing, and they accept that it is how things are. Much the same process has happened with computer font generation on television. In its earliest days, computer titling was ragged and crude. Few media professionals would even consider it in the light of any alternative at all. Today, however, it is accepted and virtually universal. The skill and artistic treatment of the operators notwithstanding, the characters are still heavily on the jaggy side. But now, I would maintain that most people just think that's the way it is, and don't even remember the days of smooth edged film opticals. The main problem with DTP in general is that it falls into the hand of people who expect a computer to design for them, and silently accept what it puts out. While that product may be mathematically sound, it's lousy design. The designer who treats the machine as just another tool, albeit a powerful one, will probably find a way to get the type looking the way you would like to see it in that book, though realistically new rarely duplicates old. -- -- Eastern Graphics Services, Toronto (416) 286-6192 don@eastern.UUCP (Don O'Shaughnessy) or ...!uunet!attcan!telly!moore!eastern or ...!utgpu!lsuc!eastern
ede879g@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Robert D. Nicholson) (06/04/91)
Whats the easiest way to get paragraph numbering information from a WP51 file to Ventura 3.0. Since ventura ignores "Par Def" and the other WP51 codes which relate to paragraph numbering. Should I be numbering (auto-numbering) inside ventura rather than wordperfect.