🚀 go-pugleaf

Marc N. Barrett (barrett@iastate.edu) wrote:
> In article <2harjb$9c9@bushwire.apana.org.au> Tetragon@Lisa.apana.org.au writes:
> >Marc N. Barrett (barrett@iastate.edu) wrote:
> >The very fact that the OS still supports it just incase some decent driver
> >are accidentally written & used is still a bonus in this argument.
> >(Ie: it wouldnt take a change of OS if I decided to write a decent driver.)

>    Oh yes it would!  The problems with the drivers go MUCH deeper than just
> the drivers themselves.  The problem is that AmigaOS has virtually NO support
> for structured objects, and so applications always compose bitmaps, which are
> sent to the drivers for printing.

This is still no reason why a decent driver may not be written. After all,
regardless of how the OS or apps massage the data, it is still output to
the printer as a bitmap, yes? (Okay, perhaps not with a postscript printer.
Amiga can do postscript, abeit with the problems you mention below.)
Would I be correct in saying though that the majority of printing done on
all platforms (Not any one, but all) actually is not on Postscript printers?

Anyway, it's not so much a problem of the whole OS not having structured
objects, though this is something that is viable for a wish-list. Rather,
all it needs is decent software to handle the way printing is allready done.
(Which is more difficult for the individiual programmer I admit.)

> So why does the Amiga's PostScript driver produce PS
> files with hardcoded resolutions that totally negate PostScript's resolution-
> independent features?  It is because there is no way the Amiga's PostScript
> driver CAN'T be resolution-independent, since Amiga applications NEVER pass
> structured objects to the printing system.

So you want C= to use true PostScript? Is this possible? (From a copyright
standpoint and such?) Ie: you either want a custom structured-objectivity,
or Mac-style PostScript ported. Either way, in this case, if one was
arbitarily made up by C=, you would complain that it wasn't PostScript
compatible, or whatever to degrade it (is a remote liability I suppose, but
certainly not fatal or anything) or you want a facsimilie of the exact
process of the way a Mac might do it. In that case, just use your Mac Marc.
(Though I wouldn't mind it myself, I'm hardly using it or wanting it.)

So basically two negative points in your original post were only one, ie:
no structured objects. Printer drivers again are no problem if you wanna have
the option of writing one. Just as original Mac's didn't have the direct
video broadcast standard that would let one extremely cheaply hook a machine
to a standard VCR for composite output, `out-of-the-box', Amiga dosen't have
structured-object functionality for printing. I know which I preffered at
the time I bought my Amiga, and I can still print 100% of the standard docs
perfectly fine for my needs.(Which are very typical of the majority of users.)

> >>      Device-independent graphics
> >Isn't this RTG? Isn't this practically a sure thing, effectivly for a later
[....]
>    These are crude hacks and don't do much.  True RTG would give you things
> like 24-bit support and much greater compatibility between third-party
> graphics cards.

Between 3rd Party?? Why, when 3rd party will (is allready) adapting the
standard for the OS, there is no need to adapt *between* 3rd party products.
The statement that 3rd party solutions are inadequite is an opinion. Certainly
people find limited RTG for their specific boards immensely usefull, certainly
enough for these cards to sell.

I can't see much functionality being lost by
non-standard RTG, Commodore standard RTG will be very nice, and usefull for
those who need it for exotic or atypical applications, but I'd say the majority
by far aren't limited by how they can use their particular graphics hardware
overmuch by this lack so far.

I note you make no comment on eventuality of standard RTG. This has got to
be a good sign!!!

> >>      Device-independent audio
> >I don't know if this is really so important, but anyway, if it was, what other
> >platform has such features?

>    The Macintosh and OS/2 2.1, for example.  System 7.1 has a new Sound

But this isn't really needed for Amiga. It would be simple overkill, which I'm
sure again you would immedietly jump on. The Hardware in Amiga is standard,
and has allways been. D-I audio is needed on other systems, because really
it is a super-patch for the fact they have had to upgrade their inferior
stock sound facilities.

Untill sound upgradeability with AAA, D-I audio isn't needed, and when we
will need it, C= will (read, *must* they have no choice effectivly) do it for
the OS needed for AAA. Cant see anything bad by this situation so far. Ofcourse
you may again jump on it as inferior, but it is my opinion that you feel as
such simply because it may be a different, and perhaps _in_some_respects_, a
better way of doing it.

(Cross compatibility in hardware is allways better than in software, and we
have allways had it, regardless if other platforms have had to support
inferior systems.)

Hmm, you have no problem it seems with my points you did edit out.

>  ++++      Marc Barrett  -MB-

--
==============================================================================
     //  Gavan A. McCormack.. Amiga1200/4-245  Tetragon@Lisa.apana.org.au
   \X/ ``Aw, there's something fishy about this whole setup.''[THoHIV.1f04]