🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1324@alsys1.aecom.yu.edu> manaster@yu1.yu.edu writes:

>I  understand that there are some viewers that one can use to view
> all the postscript documentation files on the NT sdk CD_ROM.
>[ stuff deleted ]
> Why on Earth did microsoft put this out in this fashion without a
> viewer. It almost seems like this is part of some mad plan to
> force people to BUY the docs.
>

Because the CD-ROM *also* contains the same information in Windows Write,
and in "Help" format.  Lots of people have a PostScript printer, and for
those people, supplying the documentation in PostScript format allows them
to directly print the documentation without the bother of having to go via
a word processor.

> Thank you very much for the help.
>
> Henry Manaster
>

Best wishes,

Chris
-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Chris Marriott                           | chris@chrism.demon.co.uk    |
| Warrington, UK                           | BIX: cmarriott              |
|                                          | CIX: cmarriott              |
| Save the whales.  Collect the whole set. | CompuServe: 100113,1140     |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

In article <727897437snz@chrism.demon.co.uk> chris@chrism.demon.co.uk writes:
>In article <1324@alsys1.aecom.yu.edu> manaster@yu1.yu.edu writes:
>
>>I  understand that there are some viewers that one can use to view
>> all the postscript documentation files on the NT sdk CD_ROM.
>>[ stuff deleted ]
>> Why on Earth did microsoft put this out in this fashion without a
>> viewer. It almost seems like this is part of some mad plan to
>> force people to BUY the docs.
>>
>
>Because the CD-ROM *also* contains the same information in Windows Write,
>and in "Help" format.  Lots of people have a PostScript printer, and for
>those people, supplying the documentation in PostScript format allows them
>to directly print the documentation without the bother of having to go via
>a word processor.
>
>> Thank you very much for the help.
>>
>> Henry Manaster
>>
	One of the things that annoys me about Windows 3.1 (but I
	do like almost all of it), is the idea of associating a
	file type with a utility to allow it to be accessed and/or
	printed.  So, if I associate *.c with notepad.exe, then
	I can just click on a .c file in File Manager and print it.
	Windows knows enough to fire up notepad to print it.
	*BUT*, what if I have all of these postscript files and I
	don't have an application that can read them in order to
	print them.  The only way to print them from File Manager
	is to have an application that can read PS files associated
	with them.  I am forced to jump out to DOS and do:
		c:\copy xxx.ps lpt1
	which seems kind of silly when Windows is supposed to be
	all-wonderful and all-powerful.

	Obviously, if I have a .WK1 file, I will need a Lotus
	(or clone) product that can read the file if I want to
	print it from File Manager.  But postscript files are
	already print-ready.  So to make a long story short,
	does Windows NT improve upon this Windows 3.1 'gotcha'?

	On a similar note, if *.BAT files are pre-associated as
	'executable' files, then how can I print a *.BAT file
	from File Manager by clicking in it.  Obviously I will
	have to manually fire up notepad on it.  File Manager
	needs a way to print a file just be selecting it (it would
	have to assume you know what you are doing and that the
	file is already in appropriate print-ready format for
	the printer).
-- 
John A. Grant						jagrant@emr1.emr.ca
Airborne Geophysics
Geological Survey of Canada, Ottawa

I have no problem with the inclusion of the postscript doc files,
my problem is with the exclusion of a postscript viewer for those
of us who do not wish to print so many pages of docs.

-- 
***************************************************************************
	Henry Manaster          *     EMail: manaster@yu1.yu.edu
	Brooklyn, NY            *
                                *
	Disclaimer: The above is not necessarily MY opinion nor that 
				of anyone else :-)  ????!
****************************************************************************
 

In article <1993Jan24.211233.23040@emr1.emr.ca> jagrant@emr1.emr.ca (John Grant) writes:
> some stuff deleted...
>	 The only way to print them from File Manager
>	is to have an application that can read PS files associated
>	with them.  I am forced to jump out to DOS and do:
>		c:\copy xxx.ps lpt1
>	which seems kind of silly when Windows is supposed to be
>	all-wonderful and all-powerful.
>
>	On a similar note, if *.BAT files are pre-associated as
>	'executable' files, then how can I print a *.BAT file
>	from File Manager by clicking in it.  Obviously I will
>	have to manually fire up notepad on it.  File Manager
>	needs a way to print a file just be selecting it (it would
>	have to assume you know what you are doing and that the
>	file is already in appropriate print-ready format for
>	the printer).

Either the latest issue of PC Magazine or the previous issue had an article
in User to User which described how to implement "drag & drop" in the file
manager.  The main purpose was to be able to view documentation of the form
"readme" or "read.me" or "docs.man".  You'd go crazy trying to associate all
of these with notepad or another reader.  Now I can just click on a file of
interest and drag it over to one of three viewers I have permanently visable
in file manager (notepad, write & microemacs) and drop it on top.  Moments
later the selected app appears showing the file.  I don't know if the print
manager will allow you to do this or not, but it's worth a try.

Dave

I am trying to print some pages of the docs; the write format is unuseable,
as mentioned in comp.os.ms-windows.win32 some weeks before.
Well, PS is something fine, but MS did something strange. Obviously, they
didn't use a real PS printer, because they have some ESC-sequences at the
very beginning and end of the files.
Further problems I've got is that my PS printer emulator does not know
the PS commands 'setduplexmode' and 'setpapertray'.
How can I substitute these two seemingly unnecessary commands with some
kind of NOP code ? How many args do these commands expect on the stack ?

Help is fully appreciated, Thanx
-- 
Claudius Mokler
e-mail mokler@desert.in-berlin.de

Henry Manaster (manaster@yu1.yu.edu) on the lack of a PostScript
viewer on the Windows NT SDK:
 ----
| Why on Earth did microsoft put this out in this fashion without a
| viewer. It almost seems like this is part of some mad plan to
| force people to BUY the docs.
 ----

I suppose we can all see Machiavelian plots in almost every aspect
of society if we look hard enough.

In this situation however, the answer is really quite simple. We don't
have a PostScript viewer that we could put on the SDK.

I suppose we 'could' take a hit in our development scheduled for NT in
order to right one... but that would most likely delay the release of
NT (and add a testing burden), which would not be a popular solution.

I suppose we 'could' buy an existing one from somebody and ship it on
the disk... but that would force us to increase the cost of the SDK,
as well as add an extra testing burder to make sure the viewer kept in
sync with the changes in the system. Again, not popular decisions.

Or we could attempt to satisfy as many people as humanly possible without
affecting any schedules by simply tossing the PS files onto the disk
with the warning 'caveat emptor' so that those individuals who can make
use of these files are allowed that opportunity, and give those people
who can't use PS files something to complain about. :->


If anybody does happen to know of a public domain PostScript viewer, that
has been ported to Windows NT, and can read the PostScript files that
have been included on the SDK, I'd be more then happy to pass it on to
the SDK team for inclusion in a future rev of the disk.

-Robert

In article <1993Jan27.232252.11602@microsoft.com> roberth@microsoft.com (Robert Hess) writes:
>Henry Manaster (manaster@yu1.yu.edu) on the lack of a PostScript
>viewer on the Windows NT SDK:
> ----
>| Why on Earth did microsoft put this out in this fashion without a
>| viewer. It almost seems like this is part of some mad plan to
>| force people to BUY the docs.
> ----
>In this situation however, the answer is really quite simple. We don't
>have a PostScript viewer that we could put on the SDK.

Just out of curiosity, why didn't Microsoft use the same approach used in the
Developer Network CD-ROM?  I absolutely love the search engine that was built
into this CD-ROM.  I can find anything I need in moments and then can either
view or print it.  Or, if I want, I can just go through the Table of Contents
for the item of interest.  I was really surprised to find that this was not
the case when I got the Windows NT Beta CD-ROM.

Dave

>If anybody does happen to know of a public domain PostScript viewer, that
>has been ported to Windows NT, and can read the PostScript files that
>have been included on the SDK, I'd be more then happy to pass it on to
>the SDK team for inclusion in a future rev of the disk.

 followup to my own posting. I have indeed recently found out that
 such a public domain viewercan be found at ftp.uu.net under the
 name viewps.zip under a Compuserve subdirectory (I don't recall
 the name), but you can easily find it by some trial and error, or
 by using archie. I do hope you will use it or something similar,
 and not cop out by the "not made here syndrome." 

 P.S. I haven't tried it yet, so I don't know how well it works.

 Henry Manaster

-- 
***************************************************************************
	Henry Manaster          *     EMail: manaster@yu1.yu.edu
	Brooklyn, NY            *
                                *
	Disclaimer: The above is not necessarily MY opinion nor that 
				of anyone else :-)  ????!
****************************************************************************