Re: The Death of Carbon
- From: Tim Murray <no-spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 01:22:23 -0500
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:44:18 -0500, Daniel Johnson wrote:
I think I understand you. When you say "desktop publishing", what you mean
is "pre-press"; that is, you are not printing anything yourself. You are
preparing documents for a third party to print (in volume), and they are
locked-in to PostScript technology.
And if you *are* locked in to PostScript, I can see how you'd like OS X's
native PostScript support better than Windows' coping strategies. With OS X,
you get fonts that match what a PostScript printer does built in- no need to
spring for ATM or anything.
And that's great. But that's a niche: the pre-press niche, if I have guessed
correctly. The broader market is not committed to PostScript, and most
printers do not use those fonts or that printer language.
These days, what they do is try to match Windows on-screen rendering pretty
well. They ship with fonts that try to look very like "Times New Roman" and
"Arial", not so much "Times" and "Helvetica". This produces very good
WYSIWYG without having to compromise on performance, and without locking you
in to Adobe's technology.
You are, perhaps, not convinced by this sort of popularity argument. After
all, printers include those fonts because Windows is so popular, not because
they are the best fonts or anything like that.
But Windows wins if we ignore which printers are more common, too.
Both OS X and Windows can be faced with printers that don't have the 'right'
stuff in them. OS X might face a PCL printer. Windows might face a
PostScript printer. In both cases, the printer fonts don't match the screen
fonts.
Windows copes with this better: you can choose to download the screen font
to the printer, or use font substitution. *Both* are faster than OS X's
'print a bitmap of the page' approach.
What you seem to want to do is assume that PostScript printers and their
default fonts are The Standard, and that Windows should have been optimized
for that case. That has never been true. Windows was designed to deal with
the incredible variety of printers that existing back in the day, and since
Windows came to dominate, the situation has improved because the printers
becames 'more like Windows'. PostScript didn't really enter into it. And it
still doesn't.
And that's why OS X's "PostScript or bust" approach is inferior to Windows'
device independence.
You really just need to stop posting. You clearly don't know beans about
printing, fonts, etc. You were mostly lost for a few paragraphs, and then
when you said "OS X's 'print a bitmap of the page" approach", you completely
nailed your coffin of knowledge shut. And the paragraph that follows about
printers becoming more like Windows ... well, that's a shovel of dirt.
.
- References:
- Re: The Death of Carbon
- From: Mitch
- Re: The Death of Carbon
- From: Daniel Johnson
- Re: The Death of Carbon
- From: Mitch
- Re: The Death of Carbon
- From: Daniel Johnson
- Re: The Death of Carbon
- Prev by Date: Re: the God that never was - Bible Prophecy
- Next by Date: Re: Once again, Intel builds a CPU just for Apple
- Previous by thread: Re: The Death of Carbon
- Next by thread: Re: PC World 25 Most Innovative Product Award Winners
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
