From: jsmith@red-branch.MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 1995 10:18:50 -0400 (EDT)
To: black@velocity.com
Cc: vsta@cisco.com
Subject: Re: bitblt
In-Reply-To: <9509271643.AA20238@velocity.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.SOL.3.91.950928101403.29914B-100000@red-branch>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Wed, 27 Sep 1995, Ben Black wrote:

> >> problems.  Another concern is overkill.  It's relatively easy to write a
> >> conventional /dev/bitblt compared to a postscript engine, and is that extra
> >> functionality ever going to be used?
> >>
> >> rajat
> >
> >NeXt used to use postscript for its screen output. Horrid. Postscript is
> >terribly in-efficient.
> >
> "used to use"?  i am sitting in front of one of our 50 machines running  
> nextstep for intel and it is most certainly still display postscript.  however  
> inefficient postscript may seem, the display postscript system in nextstep is  
> extremely fast.  certainly much nicer to use than windows (95, NT, or  
> otherwise) or the sparc next to me.  as for programming, the display  
> postscript is simply a dream compared to graphics programming for, say,  
> x-windows.  i think it would be a mistake to discard display postscript out of  
> hand simply because ignorance makes us think it must be slow.  i have been in  
> favor of using display postscript for vsta since i first came across it last  
> year.
> 
> 
> ben
> 

I would love to see display postscript used as well.  Aside from the 
control over size in various media.  Going from screen to printer output 
becomes much more 'real' in that things don't chance nearly as much in 
appearence, or apparent appearence.

Is there a 'redbook' on display postscript or documentation someon can 
get ahold of easily?  If so could someone point it out to me? (online 
would work well also).

We would have to construct a 'free' version of it, but I have been 
playing with that as a project for quite awhile and would be glad to work 
on it.


Jonathan Smith