Xref: utzoo comp.windows.open-look:1142 comp.lang.postscript:8228 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!mondrian.mmwb.ucsf.edu!mday From: mday@mondrian.mmwb.ucsf.edu (Mark Day) Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look,comp.lang.postscript Subject: Re: Update on SPARCprinter/NeWSprint resolution problem Message-ID: Date: 8 Apr 91 04:22:14 GMT References: <41@ftms.UUCP> <1991Apr7.020109.11882@rodan.acs.syr.edu> Sender: daemon@cgl.ucsf.edu Lines: 65 amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: (Intro text deleted...) >However, for whatever reason, sun felt that the >SPARCprinter was their 'solution'. They totally wrote off postscript and >wne their own way. My thought is that they did it to save the cost of adobe >licensing. SUN's solution has it's strong points, and it's weak points as >well. In my mind, the weak points overpower the strong points. I don't think that this is a completely fair statement. A little historical perspective may be in order. NeWSprint and the SPARCprinter seem to be an attempt by Sun to leverage the work that Sun put into developing a PostScript interpreter for its windowing system (Openwindows, nee NeWS) into a printer product. From my own recollections from early talks about NeWS given by Sun engineers (don't even consider taking this as gospel), at the time that NeWS was being developed, Adobe was not interested in developing a version of PostScript for CRT displays. Since Sun was interested in developing this technology, they had to go their own way. An Adobe license wasn't an option at the time. Why Sun and Adobe didn't come to some type of technology sharing agreement once they both became interested in the same basic goal is a deep, dark secret that will probably never be released to us unwashed masses. It sure would have made things easier on us application programmers who would only have had to worry about one flavor of PostScript for workstation displays instead of the current two (Display PostScript and NeWS). >it's (own) weakpoints, postscript has the very nice ability for me to see a >300 DPI DRAFT before shipping the final output off to a high resolution >printer (like a linotype 1,000 tp 30,000 DPI) for final output. Now, with a >Sparcprinter, I don't know that what comes out will be exactly the same >(minus the dpi difference). In a perfect world, all PostScript interpreters would create the exact same output, given identical input. If Sun's version produces different output than a true Adobe interpreter, then I would hope that the Sun would consider this a bug, and fix the interpreter. Until there is some way of certifying that an interpreter adheres to a more rigorous standard than simple Red Book compatiblily, we will all have to decide for ourselves if the advantages of a certain interpreter/platform outweigh the disadvantages of not having the Adobe seal of approval. > The upgrade price for firmware upgrades has been ridiculous because it's >been a virtual monopoly. The same will be true for software versions, just >mark my word. SUN and others love it because now they can 'sell' upgrades >on tape and the hardware costs in the field are nill. It also seems so much >easier to keep selling upgrades and people stand in line to buy new tapes to >fix the defects of the last tapes. The % of people that are willing to wait >out for bigger upgrades or other sources drops vastly, making more profits >for sun (or whom ever...). Since the NeWSprint software is so closely tied to the windowing system used by Sun workstations, I don't think upgrade cost will be a problem. Although Sun charged for initial versions of the NeWS windowing system, their policy of late has been to ship a right to use license for this software with every CPU they sell. My guess is that future updates to OpenWindows will only cost a small media fee. (If only Sun would adopt this policy for their OS...) -- Mark Day Dept. of Pharmaceutical Chemistry mday@picasso.mmwb.ucsf.edu University of California, San Francisco ..ucbvax!ucsfcgl!mday Voice: (415) 476-5326 FAX: (415) 476-0688