Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!exodus!concertina.Eng.Sun.COM!fiddler
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Not another NeXT defector???!!!
Message-ID: <2301@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 7 Nov 90 19:02:51 GMT
References: <1990Nov6.212848.10254@agate.berkeley.edu> <508@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> <1990Nov6.234855.11155@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: news@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM
Lines: 32

In article <1990Nov6.234855.11155@midway.uchicago.edu>, kmc4@quads.uchicago.edu (keith matthew cardoza) writes:
> In article <1990Nov6.232454.18981@agate.berkeley.edu> knrgroup@garnet.berkeley.edu (Raymond group) writes:
> 
> >Perhaps Apple should think about putting a PostScript interpreter into their
> >computer so Mac laser printers wouldn't be so expensive.  This is all the
> >more reason to buy a NeXT.
>
> One of the reasons that a postscript printer costs so damn much is because 
> the liscensing fee for postscipt that you have to pay.  Putting a PS 
> interpreter in a Mac doesn't solve the problem.  The cost to put a 
> Motorola 680x0 in a Laserwriter doesn't affect the price nearly as much
> as the liscensing fee.

It's bad enough to force the CPU to handle all the I/O, now you should
want to load it up with PostScript processing as well?  (Since the licensing
costs are pertty close, you don't get a win there, and loss with the overall
system throughput hit.)  Notice that the NeXT offloads a lot of I/O from the
CPU...they've got some saved cycles to waste.  Since they already have to
deal with PostScript for the screen display, the printer is a minor added
cost.

Putting the PS interpreter in the printer is reasonable...but a better
solution might be to write your own PS clone and run that in the printer.
You'll then avoid having to pay Adobe, printer price goes down.  Hope the
interpreter works properly, though.


--
------------
  The only drawback with morning is that it comes 
    at such an inconvenient time of day.
------------