[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Mac programs and underlying OS





On 7 May 1996 krm@fast.net wrote:

> In the past it has been mentioned that ARDI would wait until Executor
> is ported to a more advanced operating system (OS/2, Win 95), before
> implementing certain funtionality.
> I believe that *printing* was one of the areas mentioned.
> 
> The reason I ask, is because most publishing houses that use Macs
> are partial to the PostScript produced by a particular printer driver
> ie. LaserWriter.  In fact some imposition software *only* works
> with PostScript files produced by specific versions of Mac printer
> extensions.

Although I'm not in any way associated with ARDI, but I don't think one
would need a printer-specific version of postscript file for use at
publishing houses... A generic, device independent PostScript file should
be able to work with any Postscript printer--unless you want to use some
printer-specific features such as resolution enhancement. It is more
likely for a generic postscript file to work on a specific device than a
device-specific PS file to work on a different device. For 
device-specific features, the software handling the postscript file 
should "add" those printer specific attributes in at print time (Provided 
you don't send the postscript file directly to the printer).

Since Executor can already print postscript files, the question now, is
whether the Postscript files hammered out from Executor are device
independent or not... The bulk of the problem for most programs is whether
it can generate error-free postscript codes that would otherwise hinder
the ability of it to work on various devices. 

Though allowing the usage of extensions would be nice,too; but I doubt 
it, for the complexities of the Mac extensions, which most of the time 
are computer dependent and device dependent. :-\


References: