[comp.sys.mac.apps] postscript interpreters

medmarkd@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (Mark Deziel) (09/26/90)

Has anyone used Tscript or Ultrascript?  Any info about these
low cost postscript interperters (I can't afford Freedom of the
Press!!!) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Mark
=

hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen) (09/27/90)

In article <37619@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> medmarkd@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu writes:
>Has anyone used Tscript or Ultrascript?  Any info about these
>low cost postscript interperters (I can't afford Freedom of the
>Press!!!) would be greatly appreciated.

I've seen and briefly used TScript and Freedom of Press (no the in the name).
QMS kept dragging their feet about sending me a copy of UltraScript, saying it
wasn't shipping yet.

Brief comment: TScript is slow and somewhat buggy. FOP is expensive, but
it does the best job (the latest release, 3.0, supports many B&W printers 
like the Apple & GCC QuickDraw lasers - the previous versions did not). 
From a recent roundup in the latest (09/25/90) MacWEEK, I got the impression
that the author didn't like UltraScript, because it wasn't compatible
with Suitcase II or ATM (?). I can't verify that statement, though. Grab
a copy of the article, if you can...

Robert

norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) (09/27/90)

From article <1990Sep27.050530.7457@ddsw1.MCS.COM>, by hammen@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Robert Hammen):
> In article <37619@eerie.acsu.Buffalo.EDU> medmarkd@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu writes:
>>Has anyone used Tscript or Ultrascript?  Any info about these
>>low cost postscript interperters (I can't afford Freedom of the
>>Press!!!) would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> From a recent roundup in the latest (09/25/90) MacWEEK, I got the impression
> that the author didn't like UltraScript, because it wasn't compatible
> with Suitcase II or ATM (?). [...]

Speaking of compatibility with ATM, is anyone out there working on
a PostScript clone that uses ATM as its font rasterizer? It seems
to make sense to me, given that the font rasterizer is one of the
most difficult parts of a PostScript clone.

For that matter, why wouldn't a PS-clone use ATM as its font rasterizer? 
ATM is cheap, you're guaranteed compatibility with Type 1 faces, and you
can leverage you product off Adobe's work.

--Norm
-- 
Norman Graham   <norman@a.cs.okstate.edu>   {cbosgd,rutgers}!okstate!norman
The opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of
the state of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State University, OSU's Department of
Computer Science, or of the writer himself.

hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu (HP48SX Archive Maintainer) (09/28/90)

If there are anybody out there who is bored, then you may
consider to port the GNU GhostScript 2.0 which is a PostScript
converter that can be fitted to work with all output devices.
It works on UNIX and PC machines, so it should also be 
possible to let it work on the Macintosh. The port is a 
bigger project though.

-- 
*******************************************************
Povl H. Pedersen             hp48sx@wuarchive.wustl.edu
HP48sx archive maintainer