Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Glacier.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!reid
From: reid@Glacier.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: LaserWriter
Message-ID: <4910@Glacier.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 14-Mar-85 11:51:24 EST
Article-I.D.: Glacier.4910
Posted: Thu Mar 14 11:51:24 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 17-Mar-85 02:33:05 EST
References: <397@aicchi.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Stanford University, Computer Systems Lab
Lines: 46

> We just got our LaserWriter into the store where I work part-time.
...
> The output from MacPaint documents, while very impressive pointed out two
> things to me.  First, the Imagewriter does a VERY creditable job of serving
> as a poor man's laser printer.  While the images made by LaserWriter were
> crisp and even in tone, they were not that much better than those made by
> my Imagewriter
...
> The LaserWriter is relatively slow in operation.  Because of the size of
> the PostScript interpreter and printer driver, not much else can fit on
> your MacWrite disk should you be using that wordprocessor.  MacWrite does
> NOT properly handle underlining
...
> Eric Geoffrey Vann
> Analysts International (Chicago Branch)

There has been extensive discussion of the LaserWriter in fa.laser-lovers,
so I won't repeat it here. I would like to comment on the 3 things that you
mention in my excerpts above.

First, MacPaint is not a fair test of the laserWriter, because MacPaint
deals in screen pixels, and when you print a screen pixel it still looks
like a screen pixel. MacDraw (not yet announced) and various other graphics
programs do a much better job of showing off what the LW can do. MacPaint
was made to show off the Mac, and cannot really exploit the LW very well.

Second, the PostScript interpreter is in ROM in the LW proper, not on your
disk. That interpreter is actually quite fast.  The reason why the LW is
slow when used with MacPaint is that the LW is doing a huge amount of
computation trying to figure out how to print a 72bpi raster image on a
300dpi machine.  When the LW is driven with software that knows how to use
it properly, it moves faster than the ImageWriter.

Third, it is not really appropriate to underline with a typesetting machine.
People who have learned their use of word processors on character-oriented
machines like Diablos have learned to underline things, but real typesetting
does not underline. Real typesetting uses italics instead. Pick up any book
from any publisher and you will see this. The LaserWriter is a real
typesetting machine, and the fonts that it uses are taken directly from
German typesetter manufacturers. These fonts were never designed to be used
with underlining, they were designed to be used with italics, and any
attempt to underline with them is going to look amateurish. That's not
entirely the fault of MacWrite. 
-- 
	Brian Reid	decwrl!glacier!reid
	Stanford	reid@SU-Glacier.ARPA