Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!usc!cs.utexas.edu!chinacat!woody
From: woody@chinacat.Unicom.COM (Woody Baker @ Eagle Signal)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Obscure LaserWriter features
Summary: who said anything about macs?
Message-ID: <1546@chinacat.Unicom.COM>
Date: 5 Sep 90 01:50:22 GMT
References: <428@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz> <1510@chinacat.Unicom.COM> <1899@mountn.dec.com>
Organization: a guest of Unicom Systems Development, Austin
Lines: 23

In article <1899@mountn.dec.com>, minow@mountn.dec.com (Martin Minow) writes:
> In article <1990Aug31.082117.6829@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us>
> alex@grian.cps.altadena.ca.us (Alex Pournelle) writes:
> 
> One good reason why font caches ought not to reside on the Mac hard

Who said anything about Mac's.  This perception that Mac's and Postscript
go together does not really hold water.  There are plenty of other platforms
that use the SCSI bus

> disk is that the Mac OS wasn't setup to handle multiple SCSI bus


You certainly should be able to get around this with the appropriate
low level hardware programming.  
> false economy.  If nothing else, the Laserwriter's font accesses will

It would not be a matter of economy, but rather one of speed.  Being able
to write to the disk at the full SCSI speed would ridiculously speed printing
up, as you can use the disk as a *VERY* large print buffer...

Cheers
Woody