🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1589@adobe.UUCP>, baffico@adobe.COM (Tom Baffico) writes:
> In article <17564@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes:
> >In article <1681@intercon.com>, amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
> >> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes:
> >> 
> >> >To my knowledge
> >> >hardware addition would make a significant impact on through put.
> >> Well, a hardware FPU will add several hundred dollars to the price.  Since
> >> for most applications (churning out pages of text), the speed is limited
> >> by the marking engine, it's probably a reasonable compromise.
> >
> >Yep, it is more expensive.  But consider that approx $1000 of the price of
> >a postscript (Adobe) printer goes directly to adobe, both through royalties
> 
> How does Adobe make $1,000 on PostScript royalties when TI is selling 
> their microLaser PostScript upgrade board for $505? (Which includes the 
> usual 35 Adobe PostScript fonts.) 
> 
> As to the benefit of having a FPU, for most controllers the performance
> increase is actually quite small.
> 
> Tom Baffico
> Adobe Systems

Tom, If you'll re-read the post you will see that I indicated that things
might have changed.  I indicated the context that these figures came from.
The $1000 is the INCREMENTAL cost.  The Adobe royalties are less than that,
and it has been my understanding that they have gone down somewhat.

I understand where you are coming from, but I believe that I was
amply clear about the breakdown of the figures, and the fact that they
were from about 1986.

AS to the benifits of a FPU, I am certain that the speedup would matter.
Software floating point has to be slower than hardware floatingpoint, and
unless I am mistaken, the PS controller does most of it's stuff in floating
point.  Perhaps it uses scaled fixed point, and then I would agree.

Cheers
Woody