Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site uw-beaver Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!laser-lovers From: laser-lovers@uw-beaver Newsgroups: fa.laser-lovers Subject: Re: QMS1200A vs LaserWriter Message-ID: <1303@uw-beaver> Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 14:00:04 EDT Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1303 Posted: Mon Jun 10 14:00:04 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 07:44:26 EDT Sender: daemon@uw-beaver Organization: U of Washington Computer Science Lines: 49 From: Christopher A Kent Ed Taft responded to my note with the following: --------Begin Forwarded Message From: adobe!taft@Glacier (Ed Taft) Subject: Re: QMS 1200A vs LaserWriter To: Christopher A Kent Date: 4 Jun 1985 0946-PDT (Tuesday) Cc: taft@Glacier In answer to the specific technical issues you raised: 1. The two machines indeed use different halftone screens to render gray. We have found that dot screens don't work well on the XP-12 (the Xerox engine on which the QMS-1200A is based). The problem is twofold: small dots (used for lighter shades of gray) don't fuse to the paper because of the way the XP-12's fuser works; and the dot screens form Moire patterns or other artifacts due to mechanical or electronic noise. That is why we chose a line screen for the QMS machine. If you would like to experiment with a dot screen, the basic screen definition is: 60 45 {dup mul exch dup mul add 1.0 exch sub} setscreen 2. The margins are adjustable in both the QMS-1200A and the LaserWriter; the setmargins operator in statusdict (documented in the LaserWriter Advanced User's Supplement) sets them in both machines. It is more likely that the QMS machine requires alignment. We never did establish nominal margin settings for the QMS machine; the margins used in the current "beta test" software were pretty much picked out of thin air. Ed Taft --------End Forwarded Message As for where our copy of TranScript is, I've found out. It's tied up in litigation, believe it or not; apparently Purdue wants an indemnification clause of some sort added to the contract, and Adobe has taken the stand that the agreement is standard as it stands, and won't pay more for lawyers to design a modification. Purdue claims that it isn't standard without the clause, and seems ready to go to court to prove it! I'm not going to express any opinions one way or the other, just pass along the facts as they've been presented to me, so you can all wonder, too. Cheers, chris ----------