capslock@wet.UUCP (Allen Crider) (02/23/90)
In article <1990Feb16.190232.16224@Neon.Stanford.EDU> philip@pescadero.stanford.edu writes: > >The point we are gettng to is this: people need to convert PS to >bitmaps. A PS printer can already do this. It's not the fastest way of >doing it, but it ought to be a reasonably simple hack to upload a bitmap >from the printer (as LaserTalk does), compared with writing a whole PS >interpreter. So what is the REAL reason Adobe doesn't want us to do this? This IS 1990, Adobe has no reason to make operators to send a bitmap back down the communications line. What a useless feature. PostScript is the answer to the early '80s problem of graphics in bitmap format. Graphics in bitmapped format are unintelligent, unweildy pigs of expensive computer resources. Bitmapped graphics do not scale well, are usually not usable accross operating systems and simply take up too much space. That's why I use PostScript!!! I could care less if people like their LaserJets. However, maybe a LaserJet would be appropriate for lovers of bitmaps. Anyway, previewing an image back from a PostScript interpreter is slower than printing it to paper--much slower. I haven't used my copy of LaserTalk for more than a year. If previewing a PostScript is so vital, the NeXT machine or even a Sun running NEWS is recommended. If you are worried about wasting paper, then recycle it.