Xref: utzoo comp.lang.postscript:5949 comp.sys.mac.system:1323
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!prls!pyramid!infmx!cortesi
From: cortesi@infmx.UUCP (David Cortesi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript,comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: PostScript vs TrueType?
Message-ID: <5079@infmx.UUCP>
Date: 29 Aug 90 15:47:49 GMT
References: <9724@goofy.Apple.COM> <438@three.mv.com> <9931@goofy.Apple.COM>
Reply-To: cortesi@informix.com (David Cortesi)
Organization: Informix, Menlo Park, Ca. U.S.A.
Lines: 19

In article <9931@goofy.Apple.COM> chewy@apple.com (Paul Snively) writes:
>In article <438@three.mv.com> cory@three.mv.com (Cory Kempf) writes:
>> MACHINE CODE???? 
>Geez, relax, will ya?  What this means is that different devices will 
>probably require a different driver (gee, what a shock.  That already 
>seems to be true).

Absolutely not true. We have printers from TI, Imagen, QMS, and Printware,
and we drive them all from the identical UNIX spooling daemons.  These
include Adobe-license RIPS of different change levels and at least one
clone (Printware's PrintScript).  We shove at them the output of FrameMaker
(on Sun and NeXT), Eroff, and Wingz (Sun and NeXT) and they print it all,
plus EPS clip art from Adobe Illustrator on the Mac.

To me it is pure magic how you can hook up any arbitrary PostScript
printer to a serial port and start pouring documents through it with
*no* configuration except to set the baud rate.  It would be totally
unacceptable to have to maintain separate spooling or driving code for
each make of printer. That would be a major step backward.