Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!uokmax!d.cs.okstate.edu!norman From: norman@d.cs.okstate.edu (Norman Graham) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps Subject: Re: postscript interpreters Message-ID: <1990Sep27.134118.1133@d.cs.okstate.edu> Date: 27 Sep 90 13:41:18 GMT References: <1990Sep27.050530.7457@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Organization: Oklahoma State University Lines: 25 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 {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.