🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1990Feb19.172134.12850@intercon.com>, amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:
> In article <17975@rpp386.cactus.org>, woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker)
> writes:
> 
> That has more to do with the printer than with PostScript.  You could
> output PostScript on a plotter, or an automatic vinyl cutter, or any
> number of other devices that wouldn't know what a bitmap is if you threw
> one at them.  A PostScript program is an abstract description of how to
> render an image.  It says nothing about the actual end result
> of rendering that image.  The fact that most PostScript renderings are done
> inside 300 dpi black & white printers is irrelevant.
> 
I don't think it is irrelavant.  Consider, over 95% of all Postscript
speaking devices are 300 dpi lasers, maybe even more volume wise.
True a bitmap of a POSTSCRIPT PROGRAM makes no sense, as it is TEXT, but
the RESULT does.  When someone talks about bitmaps, it is a given that they
are refering to the RENDERED RESULT, not the program.  A bitmap of my
mailing program would be useless, but a bitmap of the SHEET of LABELS produced
might not.  Now, the mailling list program is fast at putting things on the
paper, and very reproducable.  BUT, consider a program that takes 4 or 5
hours to produce it's results and render a bitmap.  It would certainly be
advantagous to be able to grab the bitmap if you *ever* needed to create
the printout again, because it would be lots faster to download the bitmap.
Then again, you might want to do other things with it, like transfer it to
a slide.

> 
> All right, let's take another example.  What would a bitmap of your
> PostScript mailing-list program look like?
> 
> If what you want is to render a PostScript program into a bitmap, something
> like UltraScript, Freedom of Press, or LaserTalk should do the trick to
> one degree or another, but I agree with Elizabeth--let's stop arguing about
> the evils of Adobe, or at least take it to alt.religion.computers.

I am not currently arguing about "the evils of Adobe", I'm taking issue with
whether or not it is desireable, or needed to get a bit map back.  I think
that this thread was touched off by a request to the effect of "is is possible"
and to that, the answer is yes.

If anyone will hook 2 macs up to appletalk, run a bus monitor program on
one to monitor Appletalk, and use Lasertalk on the otherone to send a
program to the printer, and get a bitmap back, and then send me the
captured file, I'll be glad to provide a definitive answer, and if
possible a way to do it that doesn't infringe on anyones' code.....

Cheers
Woodyl