mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (04/26/89)
I suppose this phenomenon has been mentioned before, but just so you know ... I just finished a long document. I took it to a place to be laser typeset. Up until last December, I was using the same software as this place, so I expected I'd just open the file and print it. Little did I expect, they had updated their software. Operating system 6.X and about the 40th beta release of Word 4.0. To those of you who don't own Mac's, it may surprise you to know one of these updates made it impossible for them to print my file. They could print something that looked a bit like my file. What I eventually came away with was only slightly mutilated. But it took a lot of work just to get that. I had a similar experience the last time they updated their software. It took many man-hours to discover that the operating system on a Mac has some subtle control of the spacing of characters run out to the laser printer. They call this "partial pixel spacing". It seems that, in an effort to make the printed result match up more closely with the screen image, hundreds of hyperactive typesetters are constantly tweaking the OS control of character spacing. Every new release of the operating system produces documents which differ in ultra-subtle ways. Although these typesetting fanatics get a result which comes closer and closer to what they like to see on paper, it's us users who get screwed each time. As a result of their tweaking, no document paginated under the old OS works under the new OS. The text has expanded, and any manual page breaks or non-breaking carriage returns are likely to cause the production of extra pages and lines. Fortunately, I had enough time (hours) to re- paginate while I was still at the shop. Unfortunately, I didn't catch all the line breaks. Why not avoid manual page breaks and line breaks? Because I don't want a second level head and two lines of text at the bottom of a page. Because I don't want the term "n-MOS" to be split across a line break. Because of a lot of reasons which are important to the look and readability of a document. I cannot perceive any improvement in character spacing as a result of the twits at Apple who release new "improved" versions of their OS. But I certainly can perceive the effect of their mischief on my document. I thought desktop publishing was supposed to be one of the reasons to buy a Mac? Why do they persist in screwing things up with each new release of the OS? Don't they realize that some people have to maintain documents across OS releases? That these people don't have free man-hours to burn to appease some demented font designer at Apple? Why not complain to Apple? I sent them complaints after the last OS release. (You can't call them up, because their complaint line has been disconnected.) Their response was simply to explain what partial pixel spacing was, and that it was out of the hands of the people who answer complaints.
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (04/27/89)
In article <17605@cup.portal.com> mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) writes: >Why not avoid manual page breaks and line breaks? Because I don't want a >second level head and two lines of text at the bottom of a page. Because >I don't want the term "n-MOS" to be split across a line break. Because of >a lot of reasons which are important to the look and readability of a >document. Is it Apple's fault that your word processor forces you to solve these problems using manual overrides? A good text formatter should allow you to specify minimum widow sizes and control hyphenation. It doesn't seem like OS changes would be the only things that would cause you trouble using this scheme. Simply adding a line (or maybe even just a word) to your document would force you to go through it and manually adjust everything. The only difference is whether you have to go through this process at home or at the printer's office. >I cannot perceive any improvement in character spacing So, decisions about whether changes should be made should be based upon whether Mark Robert Thorson can tell the difference? There's a whole science of typography and font design, which spends much of its time worrying about hundredth-of-an-inch differences in the lines that makes up printed characters, so obviously some people can. I think Apple should be commended for caring enough. >Why do they persist in screwing things up with each new release >of the OS? Don't they realize that some people have to maintain documents >across OS releases? So they should never fix bugs, in case some users happen to be relying on the incorrect behavior? What about the people who DO care about the precise spacing, and complained to Apple that their documents were coming out wrong? Unfortunately, someone has to lose. And it's usually the person relying on the bug. Suppose Apple had a compiler that incorrectly compiled multiplication statements, always producing a result one higher than the correct result (don't laugh -- early versions of a popular microprocessor chip had a bug in a multiply instruction). A user of this compiler might write A = B * C - 1; in order to multiply B and C. Then a new version comes out, which fixes the bug. Should the user complain that this broke his programs? If so, what is Apple supposed to do? Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (04/28/89)
>Little did I expect, they had updated their software. Operating system 6.X >and about the 40th beta release of Word 4.0. >To those of you who don't own Mac's, it may surprise you to know one of these >updates made it impossible for them to print my file. They could print >something that looked a bit like my file. What I eventually came away with >was only slightly mutilated. But it took a lot of work just to get that. I don't understand how an OPERATING SYSTEM can change the position of letters on a page. It is certainly true that going to a new version of a WORD PROCESSOR might do so. But don't word processors simply tell the printer where on the page to place a certain letter? I don't see how it would be possible to write any sort of reasonable page generating program if it didn't know EXACTLY where a letter, of a certain size, would appear when printed. Are you saying that the word processor can't tell the printer where to put letters on the page? Presumably it sends Postscript to a Postscript printer. - are you saying that the OS CHANGES that postscript? Doug McDonald
mmm@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson) (04/29/89)
> Is it Apple's fault that your word processor forces you to solve these > problems using manual overrides? A good text formatter should allow > you to specify minimum widow sizes and control hyphenation. That depends on the level of quality the user is striving for. In the book design I am using, figure references, such as "see Figure 10" have the "Figure 10" part in bold face. To make things look nice, I want to keep this part from being split across a line break. If my editor anticipated this, it would be doing wrong, because in other book designs it might be preferable to allow the split. To say that an editor should be able to automatically handle all formatting decisions is like saying everybody should write programs purely in high-level languages without GOTO's. > So, decisions about whether changes should be made should be based > upon whether Mark Robert Thorson can tell the difference? There's a > whole science of typography and font design, which spends much of its > time worrying about hundredth-of-an-inch differences in the lines that > makes up printed characters, so obviously some people can. I think > Apple should be commended for caring enough. I am well aware of typography and book design issues. You are correct in pointing out that some of these issues concern 1/100th of an inch of white space. It is precisely these kinds of tweaks which Apple changes in every OS release, which screws everything up. The document I just finished expanded by about 1% because of their tweaks. I carefully examined the tweaks they made in their previous revision of the OS by printing the same file under the old and new system, then comparing them on a light table. The changes they made were completely imperceptible without this kind of comparison. The question isn't so much whether the tweaks are needed or not, but why the ******* tweaks can't remain stable. Why weren't the tweaks in the last release okay? Or the release before that? You can bet dollars to doughnuts that they will tweak 'em again in the next release and the one after that. If a spy took a job with Apple for the purpose of wrecking the company, this would be a most clever, subtle, and effective way to do it. > So they should never fix bugs, in case some users happen to be relying > on the incorrect behavior? What about the people who DO care about > the precise spacing, and complained to Apple that their documents were > coming out wrong? Unfortunately, someone has to lose. And it's > usually the person relying on the bug. I would be astounded if Apple received even one request from a user asking for the tweaks they have put in. I am more inclined to believe that Apple typographers are trying to justify their reason for existence (at Apple). > Suppose Apple had a compiler that incorrectly compiled multiplication > statements, always producing a result one higher than the correct > result (don't laugh -- early versions of a popular microprocessor chip > had a bug in a multiply instruction). A user of this compiler might > write > > A = B * C - 1; > > in order to multiply B and C. Then a new version comes out, which > fixes the bug. Should the user complain that this broke his programs? > If so, what is Apple supposed to do? A microprocessor manufacturer who has this kind of bug should introduce a new opcode for the corrected form of the instruction. There is no good reason to screw the existing customer base IF there is any way to avoid it. > > Barry Margolin > Thinking Machines Corp. > > barmar@think.com > {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar Mark Thorson, somewhere in California.
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (05/01/89)
In article <220600002@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >I don't understand how an OPERATING SYSTEM can change the position >of letters on a page. >Are you saying that the word processor can't tell the printer >where to put letters on the page? Presumably it sends Postscript >to a Postscript printer. - are you saying that the OS CHANGES that >postscript? The Macintosh system provides a number of utility routines for word processors, instead of requiring every word processor to know how to format for every possible output device. As for whether the word processor outputs Postscript, most Mac word processors don't deal directly in Postscript, or any other printer control language. They call a device-independent printing manager, which makes use of device-specific drivers. Changes in any of these layers could change the resulting printout. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) (05/02/89)
> It is precisely these kinds of tweaks which Apple change s in >every OS release, which screws everything up. If one is this fond of old technology, one could simply stick to Sys 3.0 or whatever. Whoever makes this decision at your firm decided it was worth upgrading. Complain to him, not us. -- From: flash@cs.qmc.ac.uk (Flash Sheridan) Reply-To: sheridan@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Portal,MacNet: FlashsMom
gast@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (David Gast) (05/03/89)
In article <220600002@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >>To those of you who don't own Mac's, it may surprise you to know one of these >>updates made it impossible for them to print my file. They could print >>something that looked a bit like my file. What I eventually came away with >>was only slightly mutilated. But it took a lot of work just to get that. >I don't understand how an OPERATING SYSTEM can change the position >of letters on a page. It is certainly true that going to a new >version of a WORD PROCESSOR might do so. But don't word processors >simply tell the printer where on the page to place a certain letter? The technical problem (as opposed to the software engineering problems which have already been discussed) is that in spite of claims to the contrary the Mac is not really WYSIWYG. The reason is that Postscript is used by the printer, but another program is used to display on the screen. The programs produce different output because they are different. BTW, I have said nothing about the merits or disadvantages of WYSIWYG so please no flames about concerning this topic. (I will say, however, that I usually use LaTeX). David Gast gast@cs.ucla.edu {uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast