Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!husc6!bbn!bbn.com!cosell
From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Why is Display Postscript Fast when Printer Postscript is Slow?
Message-ID: <33706@bbn.COM>
Date: 20 Dec 88 15:33:34 GMT
References: <1481@helios.ee.lbl.gov> <2164@daisy.UUCP> <133@adobe.COM>
Sender: news@bbn.COM
Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell)
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 24

In article <133@adobe.COM> greid@adobe.COM (Glenn Reid) writes:
}In article <2164@daisy.UUCP> cplai@daisy.UUCP (Chung-Pang Lai) writes:
}>In article <1481@helios.ee.lbl.gov> forrest@ux1.lbl.gov (Jon Forrest) writes:
}>]I'd like to hear comments about how Display Postscript is fast
}>]enough to be used as a display system whereas Printer Postscript
}>]seems to be the bottleneck on many laser printers. 
}>]What are the other differences that make the speed of
}>]Display Postscript so much better?
}>]
}>
}>These I heard from other sources:
}>1. 72 dpi vs 300+ dpi is a big difference.
}
}1.  Yes, there are fewer bits to render.  This helps, especially
}    when software is rendering the bits (rather than hardware).

Should one conclude from this that PostScript on "for real" printers (2000dpi
and up) runs super-duper slow?  [After all, 300 is about 20 times as many
bits as 72, but 2000dpi is almost a *thousand* times as many points]

   __
  /  )                              Bernie Cosell
 /--<  _  __  __   o _              BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238
/___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_             cosell@bbn.com