🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <844@sahiways.gov.au> peters@sahiways.gov.au writes:
>Personally, I find Apple's idea of the so-called "Royal" outline font
>technology to be rather dead.  I love PostScript; all the guys at Adobe (with
>the exception of the idiot who wrote the initial protection scheme) should be
>applauded for their excellent work.

Yes, from what I've seen, DPS is very nice software, as is ATM, and I 
would enjoy using it on my Mac.  BUT ...

>Unfortunately for Apple, Adobe's Type Manager came out first.  It has some
>advantages over Royal:
>1) it works on all Macs, NOW.  We don't have to wait for System 7.

I can wait.  Besides, ATM works only on Macs with enough memory, not
quite 'all' of them.  Granted, system 7 will probably want heaps o' RAM
as well, so neither has the advantage.

>2) it works with 99.9% of the existing PostScript fonts.

I thought ATM only worked with type I fonts?  The other types make up
far more than just 0.01% of the available fonts.

>3) it works with heaps of non-Apple and non-PostScript printers

As will system 7.  Besides, I already have an Apple printer.

>4) users have the choice of turning it off when necessary
>POSTSCRIPT FOREVER!

$$$ Forever!
This is my major complaint with ATM and DPS.  ATM is $60, the laserwriter+
font package is another $110.  Other fonts go for $60 to $200.  How much 
will system 7 cost?  Don't know, but I bet it's less.  And display PostScript 
is even more expensive.  Have you ever noticed the big price difference
between Apple's PostScript printers and other non-PostScript printers like
the LaserWriter IISC and Next's printer?  Yes, DPS is nice, but I'm not 
willing to pay for it.  As much as I like it, I don't see that it is worth 
the expense.

>Geoff Peters

Ray Fischer
rcfische@polyslo.calpoly.edu