ReadySetGo 7 GX: initial impressions
Lawrence DąOliveiro
boom. It was never a heavyweight like PageMaker or Quark XPress, but I
liked it for precisely that reason: it was a small program that I could
dump off my hard disk when space got too tight, and copy back on when I
needed it.
On the other hand, RSG never achieved the same level of success as the
heavyweights. Now, with version 7.0, it is trying to make a comeback,
by using a new secret weapon: QuickDraw GX.
QuickDraw GX is a powerful new graphics technology from Apple, which
incorporates professional-level typography functions as well as a
revamped printing architecture. The major application vendors have
largely ignored it so far, I guess out of a sense of complacency in the
capabilities of their own proprietary graphics and typography
technologies.
Let me admit up front that I'm biased. I've been a fan of QuickDraw GX
since I brought home that first beta from an Apple developer conference
in 1993. One of the reasons vendors give for not supporting GX is that
it is currently only available on the Mac--it's not cross-platform. I
think this is a stupid excuse. After all, have they forgotten why there
is more than one platform in the first place?
RSG 7 is still not a heavyweight package: it came on two high-density
floppies. However, it uses QuickDraw GX to offer some features that the
heavyweights cannot, like taking advantage of the typographic features
of new GX-savvy fonts. The version I'm using is 7.0.3.
Typography: RSG does automatic kerning and tracking, and it has full
support for GX font features. You can control all the ligatures,
fractions and other contextual substitutions that a font may support.
It's fun watching those ligatures break and rejoin as you type! There
is support for font variations (for example, you can vary the weight
and width settings for text using the Skia font), but they don't seem
to show up for some of the fonts I have. You can specify text sizes
down to a hundredth of a point.
You can flip an item horizontally or vertically, and rotate it to any
angle. This applies to text blocks as well, and the text remains fully
editable in its transformed state. However, transformed items cannot be
resized, only moved, in their transformed state.
QuickDraw GX includes full support for non-Roman writing systems as
standard, and RSG is able to offer some of this, too. You can mix
right-to-left (such as Arabic or Hebrew) and left-to-right text on the
same line, and when you drag the mouse across the text, the highlighted
selection corresponds to reading order, as you would expect. One thing
that doesn't seem to work is changing the dominant line direction; this
always seems to be left-to-right, even after I select right-to-left.
RSG doesn't support vertical text (I suppose that would have been
asking too much...).
Graphics: Besides importing graphic images (see below), RSG 7 has tools
for drawing lines, rectangles and polygons. A line can have any
thickness (including fractions of a point), you can put custom
arrowheads on it, and there is one dashed style available. You can set
the GX transfer mode for text and graphic objects: for example, "blend"
mode makes an object partially transparent, so that what is underneath
shows through. You don't get full access to all the options that GX
allows, but then, that's probably just as well...
Polygons are a bit of a surprise: they are actually GX "path" shapes.
This means if you start moving vertices around, you will find your
straight edges turning into curves! The paths are fully editable: you
can add and delete points anywhere, change the type of a point (between
on-curve and off-curve), and specify its coordinates by typing in
numbers if you like. As somebody who prefers FreeHand to Illustrator
precisely because of this sort of control, I like it. However, you
can't join two paths, or split a path into two.
RSG 7 is a mixed bag when it comes to interchanging data with other
programs. It supports Claris' XTND translators for importing and
exporting text, but not for graphics. However, it can import MacPaint,
PICT, TIFF and EPS graphics files. One piece of good news is: it
supports drag and drop for receiving data. You can drag a QuickDraw
picture from another application, and RSG will automatically create a
picture block for it. However, you cannot drag an item the other way,
from an RSG document into another application.
With all its GX-centricity, RSG seems unable to interchange QuickDraw
GX graphics with other GX-savvy programs. You cannot drag in a GX
graphic item, or paste one in via the Clipboard; but if you hide the GX
graphic inside a QuickDraw picture and paste it in, it will be properly
extracted (but then, this is just a standard feature of the
QuickDraw-to-GX translator built into QuickDraw GX). If you copy the
contents of a picture block and switch to another application, nothing
appears on the Clipboard.
One of the things I remember from older versions of RSG is its dismal
support of Undo. This version is no different--some things can be
undone, but a lot of others can't. You learn to save often before
attempting anything tricky...
So, is it worth buying? RSG is still no PageMaker or Quark XPress.
However, you can achieve effects with it that you can only dream of
with those packages. Also, remember that QuickDraw GX is not
PostScript-centric: every effect that you can display on-screen will
print at the full quality that your printer can physically support,
whether it's a PostScript printer or not.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
contributor to Kenneth Trueman's QuickDraw GX Fan Club at
<watch this space>
and keeper of the GX Programming Pages at
http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/ldo/gx/intro.html
John Doherty
| On the other hand, RSG never achieved the same level of success as the
| heavyweights.
That's because it always sucked rocks.
| Typography: RSG does automatic kerning and tracking, and it has full
| support for GX font features.
BFD. PM and QXP have done automatic kerning for years. As for "automatic
tracking," I'm not sure what you mean, but it doesn't sound very helpful.
And you can use those "GX font features" with what, all twenty or so GX
fonts that exist? Until there's a thousand or so high-quality GX fonts,
including a wide range of text faces, it'll matter about as much as
TrueType does, which, in my world of typesetting, is to say "not at all."
PostScript and T1 fonts literally revolutionized typesetting. TT didn't
and doesn't look like it ever will. The effects of GX remain to be seen,
and will depend on the (multiple-platform) apps that support it more than
the underlying technology. Since GX is a single-platform technology so far,
it doesn't look like it will matter much, either.
Robert Cassidy
jdoh...@bga.com (John Doherty) wrote:
> In article <ldo-170795...@130.217.96.144>, l...@waikato.ac.nz wrote:
>
> | On the other hand, RSG never achieved the same level of success as the
> | heavyweights.
>
> That's because it always sucked rocks.
Yeah, well.
> | Typography: RSG does automatic kerning and tracking, and it has full
> | support for GX font features.
>
> BFD. PM and QXP have done automatic kerning for years. As for "automatic
> tracking," I'm not sure what you mean, but it doesn't sound very helpful.
> And you can use those "GX font features" with what, all twenty or so GX
> fonts that exist? Until there's a thousand or so high-quality GX fonts,
> including a wide range of text faces, it'll matter about as much as
> TrueType does, which, in my world of typesetting, is to say "not at all."
>
> PostScript and T1 fonts literally revolutionized typesetting. TT didn't
> and doesn't look like it ever will. The effects of GX remain to be seen,
> and will depend on the (multiple-platform) apps that support it more than
> the underlying technology. Since GX is a single-platform technology so far,
> it doesn't look like it will matter much, either.
And GX is an enabler technology. It can allow people to buy apps that cost
less than $800 and still produce a quality product. GX and RSG are not
designed to displace PM and QXP but are, instead, designed to give those
people that are using Word to do page layout a decent product. Most people
don't know snot about kerning and tracking and can't really afford a
thousand or so fonts - get by with 20. GX does for desktop publishing what
desktop publishing did for publishing - puts it in the hands of less
experienced people with smaller budgets.
Whether GX is cross-platform or not is irrelevant. If people are
intimidated with Quark and want to get into basic DTP and GX will allow
them to do that, then they will move toward it so long as it is supported.
Not having to worry about ligatures and kerning is a very important
feature for new users, and one that neither TT nor Postscript can provide.
--
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine
William E. Elston
> In article <ldo-170795...@130.217.96.144>, l...@waikato.ac.nz wrote:
>
> | On the other hand, RSG never achieved the same level of success as the
> | heavyweights.
>
> That's because it always sucked rocks.
>
> | Typography: RSG does automatic kerning and tracking, and it has full
> | support for GX font features.
>
> BFD. PM and QXP have done automatic kerning for years. As for "automatic
> tracking," I'm not sure what you mean, but it doesn't sound very helpful.
> And you can use those "GX font features" with what, all twenty or so GX
> fonts that exist? Until there's a thousand or so high-quality GX fonts,
> including a wide range of text faces, it'll matter about as much as
> TrueType does, which, in my world of typesetting, is to say "not at all."
>
> PostScript and T1 fonts literally revolutionized typesetting. TT didn't
> and doesn't look like it ever will. The effects of GX remain to be seen,
> and will depend on the (multiple-platform) apps that support it more than
> the underlying technology. Since GX is a single-platform technology so far,
> it doesn't look like it will matter much, either.
By automatic kerning, the original poster meant that kerning was done in a
context sensitive, transparent to the user, on the fly kind of way, along
with automatic ligatures, automatic smart flouishes, user configurable
ornament sets, character weights, etc. PM and XP do manual kerning, not
automatic kerning. And the production of useful GX fonts is already
underway, many now available from Linotype Hell and others. Besides, all
the old fonts, including Type 1 if enabled, can still be used under GX.
The latter part of your argument takes the myopia cake. If those who
created the publishing revolution on the desktop would have waited for
cross platform compatibility where would we be? GX gives publishing on the
Mac a substantial edge, and only a fool would wait around for cross
platform compatibility before taking advantage of it.
--
William E. Elston <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/welston/>
Max Pinton
wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
> ...
> By automatic kerning, the original poster meant that kerning was done in a
> context sensitive, transparent to the user, on the fly kind of way, along
> with automatic ligatures, automatic smart flouishes, user configurable
> ornament sets, character weights, etc. PM and XP do manual kerning, not
> automatic kerning. And the production of useful GX fonts is already
> underway, many now available from Linotype Hell and others. Besides, all
> the old fonts, including Type 1 if enabled, can still be used under GX.
Hey, what? QX and PM both do automatic kerning. By "automatic" I mean
with no user intervention. Both support automatic size-variable tracking.
Quark also does automatic ligatures of the two that are standard in most
fonts: fi and fl.
> The latter part of your argument takes the myopia cake. If those who
> created the publishing revolution on the desktop would have waited for
> cross platform compatibility where would we be? GX gives publishing on the
> Mac a substantial edge, and only a fool would wait around for cross
> platform compatibility before taking advantage of it.
I wish GX well, but with no support from the big names (Quark,
Adobe), it has almost no chance of success.
--
Max Pinton (ma...@halcyon.com)
Maxgraphic Digital Portfolio, http://www.halcyon.com/maxp/
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
> Whether GX is cross-platform or not is irrelevant. If people are
> intimidated with Quark and want to get into basic DTP and GX will allow
> them to do that, then they will move toward it so long as it is supported.
> Not having to worry about ligatures and kerning is a very important
> feature for new users, and one that neither TT nor Postscript can provide.
Nearly!
XPress does support automatic "fl" and "fi" ligatures, with PS and TT fonts.
Clive Bruton (AKA The Typonaut)
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
> PM and XP do manual kerning, not
> automatic kerning.
PM and XPress both do automatic kerning, ie they use the built in kerning
tables of the fonts (in XPress' case it can be made to ignore them).
In addition XPress can build its own kerning tables, which once completed
are also automatic (PM may also be able to do this, it's been a *long*
time :-)).
>
> The latter part of your argument takes the myopia cake.
100% agree :-)
Robert Cassidy
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> In article <welston-1807...@blv-pm10-ip30.halcyon.com>,
> wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
>
> > ...
> > By automatic kerning, the original poster meant that kerning was done in a
> > context sensitive, transparent to the user, on the fly kind of way, along
> > with automatic ligatures, automatic smart flouishes, user configurable
> > ornament sets, character weights, etc. PM and XP do manual kerning, not
> > automatic kerning. And the production of useful GX fonts is already
> > underway, many now available from Linotype Hell and others. Besides, all
> > the old fonts, including Type 1 if enabled, can still be used under GX.
>
> Hey, what? QX and PM both do automatic kerning. By "automatic" I mean
> with no user intervention. Both support automatic size-variable tracking.
> Quark also does automatic ligatures of the two that are standard in most
> fonts: fi and fl.
It's not even close to the same. Try GX, you'll understand.
> > The latter part of your argument takes the myopia cake. If those who
> > created the publishing revolution on the desktop would have waited for
> > cross platform compatibility where would we be? GX gives publishing on the
> > Mac a substantial edge, and only a fool would wait around for cross
> > platform compatibility before taking advantage of it.
>
> I wish GX well, but with no support from the big names (Quark,
> Adobe), it has almost no chance of success.
GX doesn't need support from the big names. People have consistently
misunderstanded what GX will do. GX is not designed to improve Quark and
PM. Read that last statement again.
GX IS NOT DESIGNED TO IMPROVE QUARK AND PM.
What GX does do is provide a standard, easy to implement typography API.
This means that Filemaker could provide almost all of the features that
Quark does in it's layouts. That means that Clarisworks could have the
typographic saavy of Quark but allow mail merge, embedded spreadsheets
(that also have that same typographic capability), and so on. GX could
spell the end of QX and PM because should someone like Frame technology
(strange that it should be acquired by Adobe...) integrate GX features and
OpenDoc technology allowing Illustrator and Photoshop features within the
app - it could remove Quark and PM from the playing field in a matter of
days. GX could entirely remove the need for dedicated page-layout apps and
cause them to become more general and useful (as a CW or Framemaker would
be).
Max Pinton
(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
> In article <maxp-18079...@blv-pm0-ip28.halcyon.com>,
> ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> >>...
> >
> > Hey, what? QX and PM both do automatic kerning. By "automatic" I mean
> > with no user intervention. Both support automatic size-variable tracking.
> > Quark also does automatic ligatures of the two that are standard in most
> > fonts: fi and fl.
>
> It's not even close to the same. Try GX, you'll understand.
Just can't put it to words, eh?
>>>...
> > I wish GX well, but with no support from the big names (Quark,
> > Adobe), it has almost no chance of success.
>
> GX doesn't need support from the big names. People have consistently
> misunderstanded what GX will do. GX is not designed to improve Quark and
> PM. Read that last statement again.
>
> GX IS NOT DESIGNED TO IMPROVE QUARK AND PM.
THANKS. What *you're* not understanding is that if Quark and Adobe
don't adopt it, it will go nowhere. I don't care if I can do "ct"
ligatures in FileMaker. NO MATTER HOW GREAT IT IS, WITH NO SUPPORT IT WILL
DIE.
Your notion that "GX doesn't need support from the big names" makes
me wonder if you spend much time observing software development. Does the
term "software evangelism" mean anything to you?
> What GX does do is provide a standard, easy to implement typography API.
> This means that Filemaker could provide almost all of the features that
> Quark does in it's layouts. That means that Clarisworks could have the
> typographic saavy of Quark but allow mail merge, embedded spreadsheets
> (that also have that same typographic capability), and so on. GX could
> spell the end of QX and PM because should someone like Frame technology
> (strange that it should be acquired by Adobe...) integrate GX features and
> OpenDoc technology allowing Illustrator and Photoshop features within the
> app - it could remove Quark and PM from the playing field in a matter of
> days. GX could entirely remove the need for dedicated page-layout apps and
> cause them to become more general and useful (as a CW or Framemaker would
> be).
Hey, I love the idea, but it's not going to happen. With no
cross-platform support, few software developers will use it. This has been
discussed in another thread - take a moment to read and reread it.
More to the point, GX doesn't address (does it?) real-world printing
issues like separations, trapping, and other pre-press necessities. This
"killer app" you're talking about better be good to get rid of the big
players.
It's unrealistic to think that GX is going to change the world as
you're suggesting. Apple is sure to pull one of their typical bonehead
blunders and QuickDraw GX will end up shelved and forgotten.
> --
> Bob Cassidy
> UC Irvine
--
magus
> ReadySetGo is a veteran from the early days of the desktop publishing
> boom. It was never a heavyweight like PageMaker or Quark XPress, but I
> liked it for precisely that reason: it was a small program that I could
> dump off my hard disk when space got too tight, and copy back on when I
> needed it.
>
> On the other hand, RSG never achieved the same level of success as the
> heavyweights. Now, with version 7.0, it is trying to make a comeback,
> by using a new secret weapon: QuickDraw GX.
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> contributor to Kenneth Trueman's QuickDraw GX Fan Club at
> <watch this space>
> and keeper of the GX Programming Pages at
> http://www2.waikato.ac.nz/ldo/gx/intro.html
Okay, Lawrence, here's a question for you...
I, myself first started doing DTP on Ready, Set, Go! Main reason I liked
it was because of the lightning feature allowing auto placed text. Also,
it had publish/subscribe WAY before Pagemaker. (How many of you out there
new that?)
So, here's my question.
How much will it cost me if I upgrade from my 1.0 disk I still have. ;) LOL
--
POST REPLIES ONLY! Mail not working correctly. Sorry :(
John Doherty
(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
| Most people don't know snot about kerning and tracking and can't really
| afford a thousand or so fonts - get by with 20.
Please be serious. I don't know what you do for a living, but we set type
and make pages: "get by with 20" simply isn't an option. And since the
original post was re: the impact of GX on (presumably the business of, not
the hobby or avocation of) typesetting, this is entirely relevant.
Lawrence DąOliveiro
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>In article <rmcassid-170...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
>(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
>
>> Whether GX is cross-platform or not is irrelevant. If people are
>> intimidated with Quark and want to get into basic DTP and GX will allow
>> them to do that, then they will move toward it so long as it is supported.
>> Not having to worry about ligatures and kerning is a very important
>> feature for new users, and one that neither TT nor Postscript can provide.
>
>Nearly!
>
>XPress does support automatic "fl" and "fi" ligatures, with PS and TT fonts.
I wonder if that's because Apple made those "fi" and "fl" ligatures a
standard part of its Roman character set when it introduced the
LaserWriter?
In any case, that's kids' stuff. I have in my hand a brochure from
Linotype-Hell, with examples of some of their GX fonts. Here's the first
one: ITC Bookman+ Light. It's got a full set of alternate swash capitals;
a set of swash lowercase b, e, f, k, h, p and q; *another* alternate set
of swash capital A, B, J, K, R, V, W and &; yet another set of lowercase
swashes which only appear at the beginnings or endings of words; a full
set of accents (including Hungarian-style umlauts, carons and macrons);
"common" ligatures for fi, fl, ff, ft, ffi, ffl, fft, ch, ck, ij, and
alternate swash forms for most of these; "diphthong" ligatures for the
German double-s, ae, AE, oe, OE, slashed-o, edh and thorn; both new-style
and old-style figures, plus superior and inferior figures, handy for
constructing diagonal fractions.
A quick look at the next one, Avant Garde Gothic+, shows a set of "rare"
ligatures for CA, CO, EA, FA, FR, GA, KA, LA, LL, RR, RA, SS, ST HT, TH,
NT, UT, including more than one alternative form for some of them!
The Apple Chancery font that comes with QuickDraw GX has more than a
thousand glyphs in it. Hoefler Text includes more than 500 glyphs. Ask the
people at The Font Bureau about some of the more creative uses they have
made of font variations (are they actually *selling* those fonts?). I
could go on...
And if you're thinking that a novice would be completely overwhelmed by
all of this, that's the whole point: GX makes it all automatic. In
ReadySetGo 7, you just select the text, and a "Selection" menu appears
with all the relevant font settings in it, and you just have to turn the
ones you want on or off, until you see the effect that you want.
And for the pro, GX offers total control over every stage of the process,
so you can go right down to the level of individual manual glyph
substitutions if you want to. RSG doesn't give you this level of control,
but a high-end GX-savvy package could.
Robert Cassidy
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> In article <rmcassid-180...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
> (Robert Cassidy) wrote:
>
> > In article <maxp-18079...@blv-pm0-ip28.halcyon.com>,
> > ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> > >>...
> > >
> > > Hey, what? QX and PM both do automatic kerning. By "automatic" I mean
> > > with no user intervention. Both support automatic size-variable tracking.
> > > Quark also does automatic ligatures of the two that are standard in most
> > > fonts: fi and fl.
> >
> > It's not even close to the same. Try GX, you'll understand.
>
> Just can't put it to words, eh?
Very well, if you insist. GX allows fonts to determine what kinds of
ligatures (glyphs) will be supported. If the font shouldn't have fi, then
it wont. If it should have gl, then it will. GX will also allow me to
select the second 'f' in 'sniffies' and adjust it independently even after
the ligature has been built. Last I used either QX or PM neither would
allow that.
GX also allows you to select the level of these things. If you want
swashes, it adds them. If you want decorative caps, hit a button and
they're done. If you want small caps, press a button and you get them,
from the same font, no screwing around and not the drop the size,
capitalize, and widen crap either. GX allows for standard roman fonts to
contain, what 32000, individual glyphs. Imagine what can be done with all
of that.
> >>>...
> > > I wish GX well, but with no support from the big names (Quark,
> > > Adobe), it has almost no chance of success.
> >
> > GX doesn't need support from the big names. People have consistently
> > misunderstanded what GX will do. GX is not designed to improve Quark and
> > PM. Read that last statement again.
> >
> > GX IS NOT DESIGNED TO IMPROVE QUARK AND PM.
>
> THANKS. What *you're* not understanding is that if Quark and Adobe
> don't adopt it, it will go nowhere. I don't care if I can do "ct"
> ligatures in FileMaker. NO MATTER HOW GREAT IT IS, WITH NO SUPPORT IT WILL
> DIE.
> Your notion that "GX doesn't need support from the big names" makes
> me wonder if you spend much time observing software development. Does the
> term "software evangelism" mean anything to you?
It won't get support from QX and PM. It will get support from big names,
those that aren't specific page layout apps. You never wished you could
all of what Clarisworks does (spreadsheets and mail merges) in a Pagemaker
app without dumping $500 on plug-ins? I sure do as I don't have $500 for
plug-ins. CW would get bought and PM would get dumped.
> > What GX does do is provide a standard, easy to implement typography API.
>
> Hey, I love the idea, but it's not going to happen. With no
> cross-platform support, few software developers will use it. This has been
> discussed in another thread - take a moment to read and reread it.
They won't have a hell of a lot of choice. GX will become a necessary part
of the standard graphics model for Copland. It's only a matter of time
before it gets supported like bold and italic were.
> More to the point, GX doesn't address (does it?) real-world printing
> issues like separations, trapping, and other pre-press necessities. This
> "killer app" you're talking about better be good to get rid of the big
> players.
It addresses some but clearly not all. It allows developers to concentrate
on those things and leave the basic typography behind. The reason PM and
QX won't support it is the investment that is already in place. If you
look at someone that hasn't made that invesment yet - like Wordperfect,
then they may jump at it and chip away at PM. In case you hadn't noticed,
most people that use PM and Quark don't do trapping and seps. They want
basic typography and page layout.
> It's unrealistic to think that GX is going to change the world as
> you're suggesting. Apple is sure to pull one of their typical bonehead
> blunders and QuickDraw GX will end up shelved and forgotten.
I didn't realize you were writing our future for us.
Robert Cassidy
jdoh...@bga.com (John Doherty) wrote:
> In article <rmcassid-170...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
> (Robert Cassidy) wrote:
>
> | Most people don't know snot about kerning and tracking and can't really
> | afford a thousand or so fonts - get by with 20.
>
> Please be serious. I don't know what you do for a living, but we set type
> and make pages: "get by with 20" simply isn't an option. And since the
> original post was re: the impact of GX on (presumably the business of, not
> the hobby or avocation of) typesetting, this is entirely relevant.
GX will have an impact on typesetting in that it will pull the lowest-end
group away from the industry once again, just as DTP did a dozen years
ago. Getting by with 20 wasn't an option for me either. But to say that TT
or postscript is significant and GX is not is assinine. Once upon a time
there were only 20 PS and 20 TT fonts as well. Were they doomed to failure
then?
Harold Grey
costs about one-fourth the cost of PM or QXP. Using its own graphics
primitives, QD GX, coupled with TrueType GX, can also image pretty
sophisticated pages to a non-PS device. As a previous post mentioned, we
had a whole slew of alternate characters for ITC Avant Garde Gothic that
were designed by Herb Lubalin and Tom Carnase for the magazine of the same
name which just languished because there was no real way of accessing them
via traditional one-byte Type 1 fonts. Expert set fonts with OSF and SC
are kind of messy. Granted, the interface within GX for selecting many of
these typographic variations is not the most intuitive, but as with every
fledgling technology it will develop.
Harold Grey
ITC
PISCHKE DAVID
Max Pinton <ma...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> It's unrealistic to think that GX is going to change the world as
>you're suggesting. Apple is sure to pull one of their typical bonehead
>blunders and QuickDraw GX will end up shelved and forgotten.
Highly doubtful. Apple is making QuickDraw GX the only game in Copland --
there will be no other QuickDraw than QuickDraw GX in the next version of
the Mac OS.
>
>> --
>> Bob Cassidy
>> UC Irvine
>
>--
>Max Pinton (ma...@halcyon.com)
>Maxgraphic Digital Portfolio, http://www.halcyon.com/maxp/
--
Dave "Bear" Pischke (pis...@ecf.toronto.edu)
___ _____ Engineering is the art of moulding materials we do not fully
|__ |) | | | understand into shapes we cannot fully analyse and preventing
|__ |\ | |/\| the public from realising the full extent of our ignorance.
Max Pinton
> intimidated with Quark and want to get into basic DTP and GX will allow
> them to do that, then they will move toward it so long as it is supported.
> Not having to worry about ligatures and kerning is a very important
> feature for new users, and one that neither TT nor Postscript can provide.
>
> Bob Cassidy
> UC Irvine
New users don't have the foggiest idea *what* ligatures and kerning
are, let alone be bothered with worrying about them, so forget the "new
user" group.
Professional users have SyQuests filled with QX or PM files that they
need to keep, have to exchange files with users of the other OS, have to
deal with prepress issues, etc. GX doesn't address these needs, so you can
forget about the "professional user" group.
So who does that leave? The typographic dabbler? "I want to use
swashes and ligatures, but do it in SimpleText"? Not a huge group, I'd
guess.
Who, exactly, is the target market?
William E. Elston
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> Professional users have SyQuests filled with QX or PM files that they
> need to keep, have to exchange files with users of the other OS, have to
> deal with prepress issues, etc. GX doesn't address these needs, so you can
> forget about the "professional user" group.
>
> So who does that leave? The typographic dabbler? "I want to use
> swashes and ligatures, but do it in SimpleText"? Not a huge group, I'd
> guess.
But these arguments sound suspiciously like those offered against DTP ten
years ago. It is clear that you cannot envision how QuickDraw GX can make
your life easier, or how it addresses many of the shortcomings of
PostScript. Just one question; Have you ever used a QD GX savvy
application? I suspect that if you had, you wouldn't be arguing the line
that you are.
There is a high-end publishing application that is due out soon that is
built on a GX foundation, that is UniQorn. I guess that we will see what
kind of audience in the professional press there is for an application
that takes advantage of the new imaging architecture.
Robert Cassidy
> New users don't have the foggiest idea *what* ligatures and kerning
> are, let alone be bothered with worrying about them, so forget the "new
> user" group.
Why? Do you deny that there are lots of first time users of PM? People
that only need to turn out the occasional flyer or award. New users didn't
know what fonts or points were either, but they sure as hell do now.
> Professional users have SyQuests filled with QX or PM files that they
> need to keep, have to exchange files with users of the other OS, have to
> deal with prepress issues, etc. GX doesn't address these needs, so you can
> forget about the "professional user" group.
You've never seen a file translator? DataViz stays in business by
providing means of moving files from one platform to another. How many
years passed before PM was ported to any other OS? What did you
professionals do then?
> So who does that leave? The typographic dabbler? "I want to use
> swashes and ligatures, but do it in SimpleText"? Not a huge group, I'd
> guess.
Wrong. I'd say that there are roughly millions of people in that group.
It's the same group that is trying to get Word to do all of those things
but can't.
> Who, exactly, is the target market?
Every Mac user. The target market is the same market that uses bold and italic.
Max Pinton
wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
> In article <maxp-19079...@blv-pm10-ip6.halcyon.com>,
> ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>
> > Professional users have SyQuests filled with QX or PM files that they
> > need to keep, have to exchange files with users of the other OS, have to
> > deal with prepress issues, etc. GX doesn't address these needs, so you can
> > forget about the "professional user" group.
> >
> > So who does that leave? The typographic dabbler? "I want to use
> > swashes and ligatures, but do it in SimpleText"? Not a huge group, I'd
> > guess.
>
> But these arguments sound suspiciously like those offered against DTP ten
> years ago. It is clear that you cannot envision how QuickDraw GX can make
> your life easier, or how it addresses many of the shortcomings of
> PostScript. Just one question; Have you ever used a QD GX savvy
> application? I suspect that if you had, you wouldn't be arguing the line
> that you are.
It's not that I lack vision, but that I better understand how this
industry works. Have you worked at a print shop? A service bureau? I've
never critisized GX technology; to me, it sounds great. I'd like to see
that wacky European GX-savvy UniQorn app wipe the floor with QX and PM.
But it won't happen. That is my point; there is just not a compelling
enough reason for the huge PostScript-based publishing market to switch to
this platform-dependent new, untested "technology."
So, tell me, what significant, tangible benefit will GX provide?
> There is a high-end publishing application that is due out soon that is
> built on a GX foundation, that is UniQorn. I guess that we will see what
> kind of audience in the professional press there is for an application
> that takes advantage of the new imaging architecture.
>
> --
> William E. Elston <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/welston/>
--
David Lemon
>In article <maxp-19079...@blv-pm10-ip6.halcyon.com>,
>ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>
>> Professional users have SyQuests filled with QX or PM files that they
>> need to keep, have to exchange files with users of the other OS, have to
>> deal with prepress issues, etc. GX doesn't address these needs, so you can
>> forget about the "professional user" group.
>>
>> So who does that leave? The typographic dabbler? "I want to use
>> swashes and ligatures, but do it in SimpleText"? Not a huge group, I'd
>> guess.
>
>But these arguments sound suspiciously like those offered against DTP ten
>years ago.
The resemblance is superficial, because the context is fundamentally
different. When DTP came along, typesetting, graphics and publishing
were all done with a combination of physical and electronic tools, and
the few electronic tools of the day were not designed to communicate
among each other. That world has changed completely in the last ten
years, due to the prevalence of personal computers and the virtually
universal acceptance of PostScript. Now typesetting, graphics and
publishing (as well as video) are done in a digital environment, and
any feature that impedes the communication of those files between
applications and platforms is a liability. Customer pressure led the
industry to abandon proprietary solutions years ago. As much as I love
type, I believe connectivity is far more important in the market.
>... It is clear that you cannot envision how QuickDraw GX can make
>your life easier,
I can't speak for Max, but I have a great deal of respect for the
typographic enhancements incorporated into GX's Line Layout Manager,
and agree they should make it easier to do set good type, once fonts
and applications are available to use them. But in the professional
publication world, the resulting files go through prepress software
that runs only on Sun or SGI servers. I don't envision GX "making my
life easier" there; it looks like a barrier to me.
>... or how it addresses many of the shortcomings of
>PostScript.
I suspect a major red herring, but I'll bite: Exactly what
shortcomings of PostScript (as opposed to application software) does
GX address in a manner that makes any difference to the user?
>There is a high-end publishing application that is due out soon that is
>built on a GX foundation, that is UniQorn. I guess that we will see what
>kind of audience in the professional press there is for an application
>that takes advantage of the new imaging architecture.
I couldn't agree more.
- David Lemon
type nerd
discl{aimer,osure}: my employer invented PostScript.
Jaded zombies acted quaintly but kept driving their oxen forward.
Max Pinton
(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
> In article <maxp-19079...@blv-pm10-ip6.halcyon.com>,
> ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>
> > New users don't have the foggiest idea *what* ligatures and kerning
> > are, let alone be bothered with worrying about them, so forget the "new
> > user" group.
>
> Why? Do you deny that there are lots of first time users of PM? People
> that only need to turn out the occasional flyer or award. New users didn't
> know what fonts or points were either, but they sure as hell do now.
>
> > Professional users have SyQuests filled with QX or PM files that they
> > need to keep, have to exchange files with users of the other OS, have to
> > deal with prepress issues, etc. GX doesn't address these needs, so you can
> > forget about the "professional user" group.
>
> You've never seen a file translator? DataViz stays in business by
> providing means of moving files from one platform to another. How many
> years passed before PM was ported to any other OS? What did you
> professionals do then?
>
> > So who does that leave? The typographic dabbler? "I want to use
> > swashes and ligatures, but do it in SimpleText"? Not a huge group, I'd
> > guess.
>
> Wrong. I'd say that there are roughly millions of people in that group.
> It's the same group that is trying to get Word to do all of those things
> but can't.
Nope, nope. No one has *ever* said to me "how can I get a 'ffi'
ligature in Word"? If they know what a ligature is, they have something a
little spicier than Word.
> > Who, exactly, is the target market?
>
> Every Mac user. The target market is the same market that uses bold and
italic.
>
> --
> Bob Cassidy
> UC Irvine
Let me summarize. You're asserting that GX is going to radically
change the low-, medium-, and high-end "desktop publishing" and design
industries by providing such a clear, compelling advantage over existing
technologies that every Mac user will toss their current tools and use GX
in conjuction with some not-yet-available software.
Sorry, I don't buy it. If Apple makes GX part of the standard
install, and software supports it, I can see GX assuming the role of
TrueType; new users use it because they have no other choice. I think
everyone else will avoid it. I know I wouldn't install GX now - I wouldn't
be able to use the tools I currently use. I've read about Uniqorn; it
sounds great, but not so much better than Quark that I'd switch.
In the end, it's up to the software industry to decide GX's fate. If
it goes unsupported, it'll die. Trust me.
Tom Moertel
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> > [SNIP: Robert Cassidy's explanation of how everyday applications
> > like ClarisWorks will support GX, thus ensuring the new graphics
> > system's success.]
>
> THANKS. What *you're* not understanding is that if Quark and Adobe
> don't adopt it, it will go nowhere. I don't care if I can do "ct"
> ligatures in FileMaker. NO MATTER HOW GREAT IT IS, WITH NO SUPPORT IT WILL
> DIE.
Given the high availability of GX when Copland ships, it certainly will
not die from lack of support. Just about every Macintosh app -- from
SimpleText on up -- will support GX. In fact, the only applications that
I suspect will not be promptly revised to support GX are those relying on
proprietary graphics and layout engines in which the developers have a big
stake. Such apps include PageMaker, Quark XPress, and (sadly, with the
recent purchase) FrameMaker.
> Your notion that "GX doesn't need support from the big names" makes
> me wonder if you spend much time observing software development. Does the
> term "software evangelism" mean anything to you?
Does the term "4,000,000" mean anything to you? That's how many people
use ClarisWorks. There is one copy of ClarisWork for every five Macs. In
other words, Quite A Few. It is fair to say that when it comes to "big
names," Claris ought to be near the top of the list, certainly ahead of
Quark. And because Claris (like many other developers) will be supporting
GX, I doubt GX will die.
Now, this is the point where you will be tempted to say something to the
effect that it doesn't matter how many cow-brained fools use ClarisWorks
or RSG or SimpleText or WordPerfect or whatever, because those programs
aren't worth a hack-scanned Helvetica in the publishing industry, and the
publishing industry is the only thing that matters. So, this is the point
where I'll call attention to others' posts that remind us that a decade or
so ago the publishing industry was not particularly concerned about
desktop publishing, having left that worthless technology to those
cow-brained fools foolish enough to use it.
(Sources: http://www.info.apple.com/dev/appledirections/jul95/mrm.html
http://www.claris.com/News/clarisworks4macships.html)
> > What GX does do is provide a standard, easy to implement typography API.
> > [Snip]
>
> Hey, I love the idea, but it's not going to happen. With no
> cross-platform support, few software developers will use it. This has been
> discussed in another thread - take a moment to read and reread it.
Interesting point. Let's investigate it.
Pretend for a moment that to developers GX is not infinitely more
appealing than PowerTalk (which is also Mac-only technology that, like GX,
is a resource hog). Under this alarmingly hypothetical assumption, we can
expect no more GX software than PowerTalk software. That means GX is
doomed, right?
No way.
GX, like PowerTalk, gives all applications an amazing foundation of new
and powerful technology to build upon for suprising little development
effort. Under PowerTalk, all applications can mail, catalog, secure,
sign, and so on using a simple, well-tought-out, and consistent
collaboration model. Under GX all applications can paint, draw, blit,
print, set type, color, and so on using a simple, well-thought-out, and
consistent imaging model.
Sure, some companies will ignore the opportunity in GX. But if even a few
companies support it, as with PowerTalk, there will be more than enough
reason to consider it a success.
> It's unrealistic to think that GX is going to change the world as
> you're suggesting. Apple is sure to pull one of their typical bonehead
> blunders and QuickDraw GX will end up shelved and forgotten.
Shelved and forgotten? Not likely. Here's what Apple has to say about
the matter:
"Also, you should keep in mind that QuickDraw GX will be an integral
part of the Copland operating system and will no longer be an optional
installation."
(Source: http://www.info.apple.com/dev/appledirections/aug95/stratmos.html)
--
Tom Moertel
th...@telerama.lm.com
John Doherty
un...@repair.sorry (magus) wrote:
| Main reason I liked [RSG] was because of the lightning feature allowing auto
| placed text. Also, it had publish/subscribe WAY before Pagemaker. (How many
| of you out there new that?)
Since PM could auto-update both text and graphics through its own link
controls before publish & subscribe existed, there really wasn't any need
for it or advantage to it. The folks at Aldus supported P&S when it came
around, but it didn't give PM any abilities it didn't already provide
itself.
Still waiting for the day QuarkXPress can auto-update text...
Roger D. Harris
will produce a lot of GX programs.
I also agree with a former post that pointed out the sillyness of needing
windows to adopt GX to make it worthwhile. We would still be using Unix
comands if we were waiting on the IBM folks.
Roger
Robert Cassidy
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> In article <rmcassid-200...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
> (Robert Cassidy) wrote:
> > Wrong. I'd say that there are roughly millions of people in that group.
> > It's the same group that is trying to get Word to do all of those things
> > but can't.
>
> Nope, nope. No one has *ever* said to me "how can I get a 'ffi'
> ligature in Word"? If they know what a ligature is, they have something a
> little spicier than Word.
I never had anybody ask me how to do italics in 14 points until the Mac
came out. Or how to do small caps until Word, I believe, first offered it
as a style. If you provide ligatures, tracking, small caps, etc. as
*basic* features for appliations - just like bold, italic, full
justification - then people learn to use them and will demand their
presence. People can't ask for somthing they don't know about - you need
to present it to them and let them make the determination whether they
want it or not. We are still trying to present GX to the people. We'll
know soon if they want it or not.
David Lemon
>No, the files that you're primarily interchanging are lower-level formats
>like TIFF and PostScript. GX isn't going to get rid of these--in fact,
>GX-savvy applications should continue to deal with these formats just
>fine!
While the number of file types taht can be exchanged between
applications is growing, the more curcial point I was trying to
underscore is the importance of exchanging files between platforms.
Say I'm a magazine publisher. I get display pages from the art
department who are using Mac apps, and merge them with copy in my
Windows-based pagination software, which then routes through other
Windows systems for version-control editing. When it's ready, I shunt
the files to my prepress division, which runs it through their
workflow system on a Sun and electronically strips in the FPO art from
an SGI server. We then transmit the files to five printing plants for
localization, and run a copy through a formatter for web publication.
Obviously, I'm not worried about GX apps being able to deal with TIFF
and PostScript; I'm worried about dealing with GX app's output.
[re "shortcomings in PostScript"]
>GX-savvy applications offer features that no current PostScript-centric
>ones are capable of offering. I gave a few examples in that review of mine
>that started this thread.
I saw nothing in your initial posting that couldn't be done in an app
that uses PostScript as its imaging model, and - other than using the
Line Layout Manager - nothing that isn't already being done in non-GX
apps. Did I miss something?
- David Lemon
type nerd
While waxing parquet decks, Suez sailors vomit jaunitly abaft.
Jan Gunnar Moe
>> Wrong. I'd say that there are roughly millions of people in that group.
>> It's the same group that is trying to get Word to do all of those things
>> but can't.
> Nope, nope. No one has *ever* said to me "how can I get a 'ffi'
>ligature in Word"? If they know what a ligature is, they have something a
>little spicier than Word.
>
So? What about me? I want ffi, and I am using MS Word. I will tell you why:
I do not use Framemaker, because Framemaker equations are not printed as nice
as I demand, my texts are math and more math, and quality of printed equations
are priority one.
I do - until now - not use (La)TeX, because it has been so difficult to get
the typeface I want in the equation expressions.
I do, sometimes, use Scientific word from TCI because of good mat editing
capabilities.
But mainly I do use MA Word with fullblown MathType editor from Design
Science. And I do want ffi ligatures.
AND: I hope that MM type-1 will develop and incorporate things like the new TT
technology seem to be able to deliver.
It is always good mith more than one horse in a race.
Jan Gunnar Moe
David Lemon
>vendors like Atex, PC-based publishing wasn't going to go anywhere.
>
>Established vendors are rarely the ones to support revolutions. They don't
>want to rock the boat. Revolutions tend to be started by unknowns, who go
>on to become the established vendors in the next cycle.
I guess this may be worth one more response.
DTP succeeded in growing from a shoddy hack to a major professional
industry because it offered a compelling feature that had been missing
from the graphics industry for the better part of a century: platform
independence. The Mac interface, and the capabilities of the early
apps were liabilities as often as strengths. For a number of years
Apple virtually owned the DTP business, and if they'd come out with GX
in 1990 things would have looked very different. However, in the past
five years platform independence has grown up to become connectivity,
and Macs have become a component in much larger systems. If Copeland
creates files people can't tweak on other platforms, the serious users
will have one less reason to use Macs.
Yes, revolutions are started by unknowns, but most revolutions fail -
you just don't generally hear about them. Those that succeed do so
because they offer enough benefit to overcome the inevitable pain of
transition. There's also the matter of being there at the right time;
neither Gates nor Jobs/Wosniak would be able to start today and do
what they did 15 years ago, because the world has changed.
Few question that some of GX's features are an advance (I especially
like some of the Line Layout Manager capabilities); the question is
whether they have much chance as a revolution. Only time will tell. In
the mean time, for those who acuse nonbelievers of myopia and of
clinging to proprietary solutions, I suggest they check a handy mirror.
- David Lemon
type nerd
We promptly judged antique ivory buckles for the next prize.
Humayun Lari
>(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
>> What GX does do is provide a standard, easy to implement typography API.
>> Quark does in it's layouts. That means that Clarisworks could have the
>> typographic saavy of Quark but allow mail merge, embedded spreadsheets
>> (that also have that same typographic capability), and so on. GX could
>> spell the end of QX and PM because should someone like Frame technology
>> (strange that it should be acquired by Adobe...) integrate GX features and
>> OpenDoc technology allowing Illustrator and Photoshop features within the
>> app - it could remove Quark and PM from the playing field in a matter of
>> days. GX could entirely remove the need for dedicated page-layout apps and
>> cause them to become more general and useful (as a CW or Framemaker would
>> be).
>
>cross-platform support, few software developers will use it. This has been
>discussed in another thread - take a moment to read and reread it.
>
>issues like separations, trapping, and other pre-press necessities. This
>"killer app" you're talking about better be good to get rid of the big
>players.
Well, OK, <grin> I'll discuss how developers will deal with the two issues
you've mentioned.
Under GX, separations are theoretically trivial for opaque objects. For
four-color separations, since GX's color support includes the CMYK model
and ColorSync color profiles, all an app has to do is draw each component
(cyan, magenta, yellow, black) individually. Non-opaque objects are
harder -- but then PostScript doesn't support them at all.
Regarding trapping, GX's shape operations (such as intersect) can make
implementation easier. Since no shipping products do this, again, I'll
state that this is theoretical.
Ideally, of course, GX would ship with utilities to do all these tasks.
We'll see how good a job third-party developers do of providing solutions.
> It's unrealistic to think that GX is going to change the world as
>you're suggesting. Apple is sure to pull one of their typical bonehead
>blunders and QuickDraw GX will end up shelved and forgotten.
One suggestion: remember that GX works great with PostScript. Remember
that tons of applications use QuickDraw and let the system convert their
output to PostScript -- it's the way it's been for ten years. There's no
reason why applications can't use GX instead of *QuickDraw*, and let the
people who want to use PostScript *use* PostScript. I love QuickDraw, but
it needs new features; and GX is an excellent replacement for it.
We'll see what happens. Personally, I prefer GX to PostScript. I am
biased, but that's largely a result of getting up close and personal with
the technology -- and seeing what it's *really* capable of.
Regards,
Humayun Lari
Author, LightningDraw GX
(hl...@cybernetics.net)
For information on LightningDraw GX, send e-mail to la...@cybernetics.net
Humayun Lari
John Doherty <jdoh...@bga.com> wrote:
>In article <rmcassid-170...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
>(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
>
>| Most people don't know snot about kerning and tracking and can't really
>| afford a thousand or so fonts - get by with 20.
>
>Please be serious. I don't know what you do for a living, but we set type
>and make pages: "get by with 20" simply isn't an option. And since the
>original post was re: the impact of GX on (presumably the business of, not
>the hobby or avocation of) typesetting, this is entirely relevant.
Well, I don't know exactly how many fonts with GX extensions exist, but
it's definitely more than 20. I'd say that was pretty good for an
emerging technology with about two shipping applications.
Harold Grey's posting provides a real-world example of the benefits of GX
fonts. I'm not a typographer, but it's an extraordinary feeling to zoom in
400% and watch the type change as I enter something in Apple Chancery, or
switch its appearance completely by choosing one of the alternate sets in
ITC's Anna GX.
And it's not as though GX applications can't use *existing* Type 1 and
TrueType fonts -- they certainly can. The GX extensions are simply icing
on the cake (or in the case of fonts like Skia and Berlow's Millenium,
which have variation axes, some would say they *are* the cake).
Humayun Lari
Author, LightningDraw GX, and generally realistic GX advocate
Lawrence DąOliveiro
ReadySetGo is sold by Manhattan Graphics in the US. It is distributed by
Letraset Australia, but here in New Zealand you're probably better off
dealing directly with the States. Their contact info is
Manhattan Graphics Corporation
250 East Hartsdale Avenue
Hartsdale, New York 10530
United States of America
phone: +1-914-725-2048
fax: +1-914-725-2450
The price for the full package is US$395. Upgrading from RSG 6 is US$69.95;
from an earlier version it is US$89.95. Prices don't include shipping (they
charged me an extra US$21 for that).
Quinn The Eskimo!
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> Who, exactly, is the target market?
ME!!! I'd love to be able to do things like...
o create GX objects
o use decent typography
o do multi-language text
o use sub-pixel accurate objects *reliably*
...in simple (and affordable) program like ClarisWorks. To do this with
current Mac software I have to buy Freehand, PageMaker and so on, which
cost a fortune. Why do they cost a fortune? Because the people who wrote
them had to develop them from scratch. GX allows for cheaper, better
quality software.
Share and Enjoy.
--
Quinn "The Eskimo!" "Space army! I'd death ray my grandmother
for a space army about now."
John Doherty
| There is a high-end publishing application that is due out soon that is
| built on a GX foundation, that is UniQorn.
I've been hearing about this for a while now. Still waiting for the day
someone names a price for a product I can buy, though.
keith jack
Max Pinton <ma...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>In article <rmcassid-200...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
>(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
>
>> In article <maxp-19079...@blv-pm10-ip6.halcyon.com>,
>> ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>>
>> > are, let alone be bothered with worrying about them, so forget the "new
>> > user" group.
>>
>> Why? Do you deny that there are lots of first time users of PM? People
>> that only need to turn out the occasional flyer or award. New users didn't
>> know what fonts or points were either, but they sure as hell do now.
[edit]
>> > Who, exactly, is the target market?
>>
>> Every Mac user. The target market is the same market that uses bold and
> Let me summarize. You're asserting that GX is going to radically
>change the low-, medium-, and high-end "desktop publishing" and design
>industries by providing such a clear, compelling advantage over existing
>technologies that every Mac user will toss their current tools and use GX
>in conjuction with some not-yet-available software.
>
> Sorry, I don't buy it. If Apple makes GX part of the standard
>install, and software supports it, I can see GX assuming the role of
>TrueType; new users use it because they have no other choice. I think
>everyone else will avoid it. I know I wouldn't install GX now - I wouldn't
>be able to use the tools I currently use. I've read about Uniqorn; it
>sounds great, but not so much better than Quark that I'd switch.
>
> In the end, it's up to the software industry to decide GX's fate. If
>it goes unsupported, it'll die. Trust me.
If it makes your presentation look better (on paper or overheads)
to your co-workers and boss, people will use it. Most don't care
about the professional printing area, but do care how good their
stuff looks.
If PC users start getting embarrassed by Mac users during
presentations, the PC industry will eventually adopt the
technology.
You sound like Bill Gates when Apple announced their first GUI
interface... :)
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Jack kj...@netcom.com
Author: Video Demystified (407) 953-8128
P.O. Box 61123 FAX: (407) 724-7094
Palm Bay, FL 32906-1123 ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/kj/kjack
Tom Lane
> ... But in the professional
> publication world, the resulting files go through prepress software
> that runs only on Sun or SGI servers. I don't envision GX "making my
> life easier" there; it looks like a barrier to me.
I'll extend this a little further: the big trouble with GX is its poor
support, or even militant non-support, for PostScript (Type 1) fonts.
Any Mac user who might be interested in GX's advanced type handling
capabilities has more than likely got tens, hundreds, even thousands
of Type 1 fonts. Apple expects us to convert these into an
incompatible format; worse, to *KEEP TWO SETS OF FONTS ON DISK* so as
to be able to keep working with non-GX applications. This is a
non-starter. (The bugs and shortcomings of the converter app don't
help any, either.)
Why in the world wasn't GX designed to be able to work with unmodified
Type 1 fonts? It might cost a few extra microseconds here and there,
but it could surely be done. The converter obviously is not adding
any information that isn't available in the Type 1 file.
If GX fails, I think the historians will say that this single decision
was its doom. By ensuring that the professional users who ought to be
GX's early adopters will not want to touch it, the GX team have shot
themselves in the foot.
Just my $0.02...
regards, tom lane
lotsa Type 1, no GX
Lawrence DąOliveiro
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>What *you're* not understanding is that if Quark and Adobe
>don't adopt [GX], it will go nowhere. I don't care if I can do "ct"
>ligatures in FileMaker. NO MATTER HOW GREAT IT IS, WITH NO SUPPORT IT WILL
>DIE.
That's like somebody in 1985 saying that, without support from established
vendors like Atex, PC-based publishing wasn't going to go anywhere.
Established vendors are rarely the ones to support revolutions. They don't
want to rock the boat. Revolutions tend to be started by unknowns, who go
on to become the established vendors in the next cycle.
Lawrence
founding member of "Guerilla Marketers for GX"
magus
Hmmm...upgrade my ReadySetGo 1.0 for $89.95...*pondering the possibilities* ;)
Lawrence DąOliveiro
Lemon) wrote:
>In article <welston-1907...@blv-pm12-ip6.halcyon.com>
wel...@halcyon.com >>But these arguments sound suspiciously like those
offered against DTP ten
>>years ago.
>
>The resemblance is superficial, because the context is fundamentally
>different. When DTP came along, typesetting, graphics and publishing
>were all done with a combination of physical and electronic tools, and
>the few electronic tools of the day were not designed to communicate
>among each other. That world has changed completely in the last ten
>years, due to the prevalence of personal computers and the virtually
>universal acceptance of PostScript. Now typesetting, graphics and
>publishing (as well as video) are done in a digital environment, and
>any feature that impedes the communication of those files between
>applications and platforms is a liability.
What files are those? Vendors of different DTP packages still jealously
guard their document formats--you get no interchange between them. And if
you're imagining an environment where everybody is using PageMaker, you're
a little out of touch.
No, the files that you're primarily interchanging are lower-level formats
like TIFF and PostScript. GX isn't going to get rid of these--in fact,
GX-savvy applications should continue to deal with these formats just
fine!
>>... or how it addresses many of the shortcomings of
>>PostScript.
>
>I suspect a major red herring, but I'll bite: Exactly what
>shortcomings of PostScript (as opposed to application software) does
>GX address in a manner that makes any difference to the user?
GX-savvy applications offer features that no current PostScript-centric
magus
jdoh...@bga.com (John Doherty) wrote:
> Still waiting for the day QuarkXPress can auto-update text...
I'll reword what I originally said...
RSG had auto-update for text/graphics WAY before Pagemaker did. :) I
remember asking the local Apple dealer about this and he was shocked when
I showed him RSG could do this.
Michael Peirce
In article <TGL.95Ju...@netcom9.netcom.com> (comp.fonts,comp.sys.mac.apps), t...@netcom.com (Tom Lane) writes:
> I'll extend this a little further: the big trouble with GX is its poor
> support, or even militant non-support, for PostScript (Type 1) fonts.
> Any Mac user who might be interested in GX's advanced type handling
> capabilities has more than likely got tens, hundreds, even thousands
> of Type 1 fonts. Apple expects us to convert these into an
> incompatible format; worse, to *KEEP TWO SETS OF FONTS ON DISK* so as
> to be able to keep working with non-GX applications. This is a
> non-starter.
What are you talking about?
Apple AND ADOBE decide it was about time to fix the fact that
Type 1 fonts lived in two different files in two different places.
An "enabled type 1 font" is simply the same font data stored in a
single file (plus some additional tables).
And enabled Type 1 font works 100% fine with programs that know nothing
about GX. This is because our old "friend" ATM from Adobe knows all
about the new format and does it's thing just like it ever did.
Apple has gone to great lengths to make various font architectures
plug and play in QuickDraw GX. Type 1 fonts are full citizens and
work well in OFA. Others font engines will plug into besides not
just TrueType & Type 1. FAR from being "militant non-support"!
The old fonts are archived so there is a fall back position for the
user. Users would really howl if the font was enabled and no backup
as saved.
> (The bugs and shortcomings of the converter app don't
> help any, either.)
The converter app (written by Adobe FWIW) in QuickDraw GX 1.0 was rather
embarassing. The version that shipped with 1.1 is MUCH IMPROVED.
Thank goodness.
> Why in the world wasn't GX designed to be able to work with unmodified
> Type 1 fonts? It might cost a few extra microseconds here and there,
> but it could surely be done. The converter obviously is not adding
> any information that isn't available in the Type 1 file.
It's not a speed thing really. It was really something that Apple
and Adobe had wanted to fix for a long time and use this opportunity
to do it.
I *think* the enabled fonts now work with the latest ATM even when
GX isn't around (can someone confirm this? I'm to lazy to deinstall GX
and try it on my system).
--
Michael Peirce mpe...@peircesw.com
Peirce Softare Inc. 719 Hibiscus Place, San Jose California 95117 USA
voice: +1 408 244 6554, fax: +1 408 244 6882
Makers of Peirce Print Tools, Smoothie, AppSizer, DeskPicture, & ShareDraw
<ftp://mirrors.aol.com/pub/info-mac/cfg/app-sizer-22.hqx>
<ftp://mirrors.aol.com/pub/info-mac/gui/desk-picture-401.hqx>
<ftp://mirrors.aol.com/pub/info-mac/gst/grf/share-draw-20.hqx>
Danny Thomas
"Is it just GX...?" thread in comp.sys.mac.programmer.help,
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer, comp.fonts.
to me one of the reasons that should be driving major Mac software
players into GX, and encourage Apple to port it to Windows perhpas to
complement OpenDoc, is internationalization. From that thread:
#If the software market wasn't so anglo-centric the typographical features
#really would be a strong reason for Windoze developers to consider GX for
#the international market. Heck, they could probably even market just one
#version (aside from localization issues such as dialogs). At present
#users requiring non-european language support (eg arabic, asian or
#(cough) african) often have a very limited selection of oldish versions
#of programs. While NT made a few good fundamental decisions in the
#beginning such as the choice of Unicode, I doubt whether it provides the
#sort of typographical support that GX gives you.
it really is worth a look at the Inside Mac GX Typography volume to glean
some of these issues. I'd be really interested to know what Windows has
along these lines.
th...@telerama.lm.com (Tom Moertel) writes:
>ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>> Your notion that "GX doesn't need support from the big names" makes
>> me wonder if you spend much time observing software development. Does the
>> term "software evangelism" mean anything to you?
>
>Does the term "4,000,000" mean anything to you? That's how many people
>use ClarisWorks. There is one copy of ClarisWork for every five Macs. In
>other words, Quite A Few. It is fair to say that when it comes to "big
>names," Claris ought to be near the top of the list, certainly ahead of
>Quark. And because Claris (like many other developers) will be supporting
>GX, I doubt GX will die.
>
>Now, this is the point where you will be tempted to say something to the
>effect that it doesn't matter how many cow-brained fools use ClarisWorks
>or RSG or SimpleText or WordPerfect or whatever, because those programs
>aren't worth a hack-scanned Helvetica in the publishing industry, and the
>publishing industry is the only thing that matters. So, this is the point
>where I'll call attention to others' posts that remind us that a decade or
>so ago the publishing industry was not particularly concerned about
>desktop publishing, having left that worthless technology to those
>cow-brained fools foolish enough to use it.
>
>(Sources: http://www.info.apple.com/dev/appledirections/jul95/mrm.html
> http://www.claris.com/News/clarisworks4macships.html)
interestingly the first of those web pages also mentions a figure of 4.5
million users of 7.5 and exhorts developers to distinguish their products
by using AOCE & GX, but no figures of the installed base of those are
presented amongst the table. I suspect that it's poor for both.
the second of those pages doesn't seem to mention GX at all - see below
for a possible reason why ClarisWorks might not support it (yep I'm just
guessing this).
Quinn, qu...@cs.uwa.edu.au writes:
>ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>
>> Who, exactly, is the target market?
>
>ME!!! I'd love to be able to do things like...
>
>o create GX objects
>o use decent typography
>o do multi-language text
>o use sub-pixel accurate objects *reliably*
>
>...in simple (and affordable) program like ClarisWorks. To do this with
>current Mac software I have to buy Freehand, PageMaker and so on, which
>cost a fortune. Why do they cost a fortune? Because the people who wrote
>them had to develop them from scratch. GX allows for cheaper, better
>quality software.
I don't think there's been any disagreement about GX making it a lot
easier for developers to add "high-end" capabilities, but my argument is
that over the past few years major software titles are increasingly going
cross-platform. I don't want to use GX on Windows, but because it is not
available on both platforms real GX support is unlikely to be in Word,
Excel, PageMaker, FreeHand, Fontographer(?), Photoshop, Quark, Canvas,
Claris Draw/Works/Impact/..., etc. Sure this makes opportunities for new
programs to fill the void and to do so more cheaply, but the absence of
these headliners *is* going to slow the penetration of GX. While I'm
sensitive to issue like kerning and vertical placmement of '+' '-'
characters, most people I know are not. Swashes and similar will appeal
to some people, but it's not the reason I can give my user population for
switching from the above programs to ones that support GX - and
unfortunately there's not many at present.
I'm glad to hear it's going to be the only imaging model under Copland,
but that doesn't mean programs are suddenly going to support it's real
improvements.
Claris web page mentioned above - a find for 'gx' failed
>Unique Cross-Platform Compatibility
>===================================
>Alone among all-in-one packages, ClarisWorks 4.0 delivers cross-platform
>compatibility for Windows and Macintosh. With the delivery of version 4.0
>for Windows 95 this fall, ClarisWorks will provide the same interface and
>file format for each platform. Macintosh users will be able to take
>advantage of System 7.5 capabilities including AppleScript (four sample
>scripts are included), AppleEvents, PowerTalk, and QuickTime.
>ClarisWorks 4.0 for Macintosh is also WorldScript ready, supporting Apple
>Language Kits, enabling customers to integrate 2-byte characters and
>therefore Chinese, Korean and Japanese text into their multi-lingual
>documents.
if ClarisWorks allows access to GX functionality - how is that going to
be represented for the Windows to make use of it? To quote from that
other thread, but just substitute ClarisWorks
do...@apple.com (Tom Dowdy) (GX lead engineer? on a IIx) wrote:
#<D.Th...@vthrc.uq.edu.au> wrote:
## I was told that Canvas was being used by Apple to demo GX features
quite
## a while ago, but so far no GX-savvy of Canvas has been released.
## According to a current PC magazine review of drawing packages: Canvas
## 3.5.2 "for a start it boasts full cross-platform compatibility with the
## Macintosh version - you can simply open a Mac Canvas file in the
Windows
## version and edit it". If Deneba is going to release a GX-savvy Canvas
4,
## they're either going to have to:
## give up this important cross-platform file compatibility
## use only GX features easily mapped to the Windows GDI
## add a lot of GX functionality to the corresponding PC version
##
## none of these are attractive.
#
#Another possibility for those thinking about cross platform issues:
# provide GX features on top of existing ones, perhaps warning
#the user that when they use them, their files will not be portable.
#Users who care about portability simply don't use these features.
#Optionally use a bitmap proxy, so that ported files at
#least are viewable.
hmmm - I wonder what sort of features would be hard to map to Windows?
Maybe the typographical ones people are waiting for? At least Tom
suggestion doesn't penalize people who only work on the Mac, but
certainly cross-platform files can be a big issue for many people and
organizations. File conversions and incompatibilities - JUST SAY NO.
A port of GX to Windows might be more feasible if restricted to
NT/Win'95 because the Win32 GDI (from memory) includes Bezier curve
capabilities, etc. A rather more useful base to build on that the plain
Windows3 GDI API.
hl...@cybernetics.net (Humayun Lari) writes:
>Regarding trapping, GX's shape operations (such as intersect) can make
>implementation easier. Since no shipping products do this, again, I'll
>state that this is theoretical.
that's fine for GX shapes (which include fonts), but still doesn't handle
embedded bitmaps or PostScript. The impression I got about Aldus'
trapping program, was it actually rendered at least some of the
PostScript. GX isn't going to simplify that and will in fact complicate
the professional graphics market. Sure some people will use it very
successfully, but as Max Pinton and John Doherty say, the majority are
going to need good reasons to accommodate it, but I don't buy Tom Lane's
statement that the need to keep both original and GXified type1 fonts on
disk is that big a problem. Unlike RAM, disk space keeps getting cheaper.
l...@waikato.ac.nz (Lawrence DąOliveiro) writes
>That's like somebody in 1985 saying that, without support from established
>vendors like Atex, PC-based publishing wasn't going to go anywhere.
>
>Established vendors are rarely the ones to support revolutions. They don't
>want to rock the boat. Revolutions tend to be started by unknowns, who go
>on to become the established vendors in the next cycle.
true, but while everyone can see the utility of DTP I really think most
people are typographically ignorant. How else could my uni use TimesBold
for its signage and not get overwhelmed by complaints. [the problem here
is that Times has a large variation in stroke width and the fine ones
become invisible from barely 10 metres and then your eye starts finding
it hard to recognize character shapes, particularly with the perverse
kerning employed]
cheers,
Danny Thomas (D.Th...@vthrc.uq.edu.au)
PS I'd particularly appreciate good info about whether any of the above
mentioned programs' level of GX support.
PPS it seems Colo(u)rSync is the basis for the International Color
Consortium Profile Format, but it's not clear from the title page whether
that's ColorSync 1 or 2. I assume the latter. I recommend Charles
Poynton's page(s) for pointers to this and other useful material on
colour: http://www.inforamp.net/~poynton
PPPS this is mainly for Tom. One of the fundamental pillars of GX is that
it is not based on a programming language as PostScript is. Now I've used
PS quite a bit including working at the device pixel level, but because
it is a language it makes it fundamentally impossible to manipulate PS in
a general sense [meta-evaluation is still in the relm of difficult
theoretical computer science]. In contrast, GX is data-based, but I would
be interested in a comparison of these two approaches.
Warnock & Geschke's work at Xerox PARC preceding PostScript included
harbour models when they found a data-structure description to be very
limiting. mind you, the graphics model was probably rather more primitive
than GX's. That was one reason why PS has a lnguage component, and only
DisplayPS introduced access to the imaging API.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
> In article <clive-18079...@158.152.67.91>,
> cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>
> >In article <rmcassid-170...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
> >(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
> >
> >> Whether GX is cross-platform or not is irrelevant. If people are
> >> intimidated with Quark and want to get into basic DTP and GX will allow
> >> them to do that, then they will move toward it so long as it is supported.
> >> Not having to worry about ligatures and kerning is a very important
> >> feature for new users, and one that neither TT nor Postscript can provide.
> >
> >Nearly!
> >
> >XPress does support automatic "fl" and "fi" ligatures, with PS and TT fonts.
>
> I wonder if that's because Apple made those "fi" and "fl" ligatures a
> standard part of its Roman character set when it introduced the
> LaserWriter?
Probably, but at least they thought about it :-)
>
> In any case, that's kids' stuff. ...
I am well aware of the subtlties (or not) of GX, but, how many of them are:
a) New or innovative
b) Not available in other forms, in programs that people use *now*
c) Of any practical use whatsoever
And I mean that last remark in the besy possible way, I'm not a fan of
dozens of ligatures and swashes, and they are (IMO) almost entirely
irrelevant to Sans Serif fonts. They have a narrow application in display
typography.
I suppose that GX will do the same for the amatuer typo as PS did, show
him how little he knows and encourage him to learn more.
Can't you see it now, some real nice C.V., with ligatures and swashes all
over the place, no consideration for size and application, "just because
you could".
>
> A quick look at the next one, Avant Garde Gothic+, shows a set of "rare"
> ligatures for CA, CO, EA, FA, FR, GA, KA, LA, LL, RR, RA, SS, ST HT, TH,
> NT, UT, including more than one alternative form for some of them!
Arghhhh! Not Avant Garde again, whenever there's a new type format, there
it is leading the field, can't imagine why.
These so-called "rare ligatures" were, AFAIK, available as rub-down
lettering, and are available in PostScript format.
Hardly rare, or innovative, but admittedly these applications didn't
insert them automatically with no intervention by the user, hmmm, wonder
which one *I* prefer?
> And if you're thinking that a novice would be completely overwhelmed by
> all of this, that's the whole point: GX makes it all automatic. In
> ReadySetGo 7, you just select the text, and a "Selection" menu appears
> with all the relevant font settings in it, and you just have to turn the
> ones you want on or off, until you see the effect that you want.
That really is the point I'm making, I do genuinely think that GX is a
good technology that needs wider implementation, but I think that some of
the implementation of it has been "inappropriate" to say the least.
>
> And for the pro, GX offers total control over every stage of the process,
> so you can go right down to the level of individual manual glyph
> substitutions if you want to. RSG doesn't give you this level of control,
> but a high-end GX-savvy package could.
But that is exactly what the 'professional' user needs, automatic
substitution with no override is no good, it's easier and more controlable
to use PS expert sets.
Clive Bruton (AKA The Typonaut)
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
(Harold Grey) wrote:
> ...As a previous post mentioned, we
> had a whole slew of alternate characters for ITC Avant Garde Gothic that
> were designed by Herb Lubalin and Tom Carnase for the magazine of the same
> name which just languished because there was no real way of accessing them
> via traditional one-byte Type 1 fonts. Expert set fonts with OSF and SC
> are kind of messy...
As you say, they were available as expert sets, and I find this hardly
messy when one (well *I* can) call up an expert set with a single
keystroke in XPress.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
> Very well, if you insist. GX allows fonts to determine what kinds of
> ligatures (glyphs) will be supported. If the font shouldn't have fi, then
> it wont. If it should have gl, then it will. GX will also allow me to
> select the second 'f' in 'sniffies' and adjust it independently even after
> the ligature has been built. Last I used either QX or PM neither would
> allow that.
Sorry, XPress does, it retains the correct spelling of the word (when
spell checked), and will "break" the ligature if tracked over a preset
(controlable) amount.
But it can only do this with "fi" and "fl" ligatures.
> GX allows for standard roman fonts to
> contain, what 32000, individual glyphs. Imagine what can be done with all
> of that.
I think you'll find that TrueType can do this, and look at the uptake
there of such a facility. PostScript also supports this through multiple
byte fonts for the Asian market.
>
> They won't have a hell of a lot of choice. GX will become a necessary part
> of the standard graphics model for Copland. It's only a matter of time
> before it gets supported like bold and italic were.
So what, Apple won't support PS and TT anymore. If Copeland comes with GX
embedded and runs too large a System as a consequence there will be a low
uptake of Copeland, just as ther has been a low uptake of GX and
PowerTalk.
> ..In case you hadn't noticed,
> most people that use PM and Quark don't do trapping and seps. They want
> basic typography and page layout.
Er, well not really, *I* want advanced typography and layout, *and* I want
to be able to control trapping and seps when required, although I'm
usually happy to leave that part to the repro-house who output the films.
>
> > It's unrealistic to think that GX is going to change the world as
> > you're suggesting. Apple is sure to pull one of their typical bonehead
> > blunders and QuickDraw GX will end up shelved and forgotten.
>
> I didn't realize you were writing our future for us.
One of you is trying to.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
> What files are those? Vendors of different DTP packages still jealously
> guard their document formats--you get no interchange between them. And if
> you're imagining an environment where everybody is using PageMaker, you're
> a little out of touch.
What, like Illustrator files can't be opened by FreeHand and XPress by
Pagemaker.
What I imagine is something a little more sophisticated, Acrobat V5.0(?),
real cross-platform, cross-program file exchange.
> >>... or how it addresses many of the shortcomings of
> >>PostScript.
> >
> >I suspect a major red herring, but I'll bite: Exactly what
> >shortcomings of PostScript (as opposed to application software) does
> >GX address in a manner that makes any difference to the user?
>
> GX-savvy applications offer features that no current PostScript-centric
> ones are capable of offering. I gave a few examples in that review of mine
> that started this thread.
Sorry, I'm not being obsructive, I did see some points that were made, and
they didn't add up to much, compared to incompatibility with Type 1 fonts
and the main thrust of Mac programs *today*.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
> In article <maxp-19079...@blv-pm10-ip6.halcyon.com>,
> ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>
> But these arguments sound suspiciously like those offered against DTP ten
> years ago. It is clear that you cannot envision how QuickDraw GX can make
> your life easier, or how it addresses many of the shortcomings of
> PostScript. Just one question; Have you ever used a QD GX savvy
> application? I suspect that if you had, you wouldn't be arguing the line
> that you are.
There are very clear differences between why there was uptake of the
Macintosh (and really they weren't bought overnight in 1985, it was well
into the '90s before they became the default standard), GX cannot replace
PS, or anything else for that matter overnight, it will take time (just as
with the adoption of Acrobat :-)), it may pass, it may fail, but that
won't be decided upon by home users, as seems to be the opinion of some
here, it will be the adoption by industry that finally seals its fate.
In reality there are not many shotcomings in the PS imaging model, and do
you think Adobe will sit back and do nothing anyway?
>
> There is a high-end publishing application that is due out soon that is
> built on a GX foundation, that is UniQorn. I guess that we will see what
> kind of audience in the professional press there is for an application
> that takes advantage of the new imaging architecture.
Well that's what we need, we cannot be expected to adopt a standard that
does not do what we already have, it needs a selling point, GXs only
selling point at the moment is incompatibility, and I don't mean
cross-platform, but with the documents and systems we already have.
Incidentally isn't UniQorn based on XPress?
William E. Elston
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
> Incidentally isn't UniQorn based on XPress?
Not even close. I have a suggestion, Clive. Before you continue with these
endless defenses of the status quo, why don't you obtain one of the
excellent GX savvy apps that are coming on the market, see what they can
do, and why QD GX is different, and then marshall your arguments against
it. Most of the people that are posting pro have seen what it can do.
In QD GX, a typeface can have 65,000 characters (not the aforementioned
32,000), easily accessible. A TT or PS font can have 256. So called expert
sets consist of several sets of variously configured typfaces and using
them is not nearly as simple or elegant as GX. In GX various degrees of
user control can be built in to the feature set of a program, and into the
typefaces themselves. Now, I *am sure* that the expert DTP guys have no
use for this kind of expanded control and versatility, and they will shun
GX, like the plague of DTP was shunned by the professional press in the
eighties. What will happen is that a new generation of professionals and
of applications will come along and put the old school out to pasture
where they belong.
--
William E. Elston <URL:http://www.halcyon.com/welston/>
Rick Zeman
|In article <rmcassid-200...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
|(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
|
|> In article <maxp-19079...@blv-pm10-ip6.halcyon.com>,
|> ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
|>
|> > New users don't have the foggiest idea *what* ligatures and kerning
|> > are, let alone be bothered with worrying about them, so forget the "new
|> > user" group.
|>
|> Why? Do you deny that there are lots of first time users of PM? People
|> that only need to turn out the occasional flyer or award. New users didn't
|> know what fonts or points were either, but they sure as hell do now.
|>
|> > Professional users have SyQuests filled with QX or PM files that they
|> > need to keep, have to exchange files with users of the other OS, have to
|> > deal with prepress issues, etc. GX doesn't address these needs, so you can
|> > forget about the "professional user" group.
|>
|> You've never seen a file translator? DataViz stays in business by
|> providing means of moving files from one platform to another. How many
|> years passed before PM was ported to any other OS? What did you
|> professionals do then?
|>
|> > So who does that leave? The typographic dabbler? "I want to use
|> > swashes and ligatures, but do it in SimpleText"? Not a huge group, I'd
|> > guess.
|>
|> Wrong. I'd say that there are roughly millions of people in that group.
|> It's the same group that is trying to get Word to do all of those things
|> but can't.
|
| Nope, nope. No one has *ever* said to me "how can I get a 'ffi'
|ligature in Word"? If they know what a ligature is, they have something a
|little spicier than Word.
|
|> > Who, exactly, is the target market?
|>
|> Every Mac user. The target market is the same market that uses bold and
|italic.
|>
|> --
|> Bob Cassidy
|> UC Irvine
|
| Let me summarize. You're asserting that GX is going to radically
|change the low-, medium-, and high-end "desktop publishing" and design
|industries by providing such a clear, compelling advantage over existing
|technologies that every Mac user will toss their current tools and use GX
|in conjuction with some not-yet-available software.
But it's NOT just a replacement technology. Remember that GX is layered atop of standard QuickDraw. With GX installed (as I have) I can use any GX-savvy program OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM like Quark or PM. It's sorta like using a Windows machine after using a Mac there's such a letdown. What tools need to be tossed?
Every current application will work on a GX machine. Type 1 fonts can be used. Where is the problem?
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Rick Zeman Romance is dead. It was acquired in a hostile
rze...@mail.his.com takeover by Hallmark and Disney, homogenized,
Will Rogers never met Bill Clinton and sold off piece by piece...
Max Pinton
wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
I suppose I'm a member of the "old school," in that I haven't
installed GX and really gotten with it. It's good that I haven't, as I
don't know of any service bureaus around here (Seattle) that have
installed it either. In fact, I doubt if any of them have even heard of
UniQorn, let alone have it.
Now, of course, that will all change, right? Tomorrow I'll lose all
my clients because some hot-shot is able to whip out more
ligatures-per-hour than I can imagine, me with only my measly Expert Sets
and typographic eye to guide me.
He'll/She'll impress the clients with the incredible Line Layout
Manager, and be able to produce every job using only SimpleText and
ClarisWorks. I won't be able to keep up, it'll be over. I'll be working at
Burger King in a week. Right?
So:
* GX has a very high "cool" factor.
* GX is almost completely unsupported at this point.
* GX doesn't do anything for designers PostScript can't do, although
it might make it easier. Then again, it might make it harder. Remember how
difficult PostScript was to use in 1985? It takes a while for the industry
to catch up to the technology.
* Designers, pre-press people, printers, et al. have a huge
investment in PostScript-based hardware and software, and it works very
well. It is vastly superior in almost all respects to the technology it
replaced (i.e. phototypesetting). GX is not vastly superior to PostScript.
On the other hand, if the software I have now supported GX, it'd be
another matter. If GX becomes a non-removable part of System 8, and Quark
and Adobe adopt it, things would be much different. I have nothing against
GX, I just think that on its current path it's not going to have an effect
in this industry.
Can I take your order?
--
Max Pinton (ma...@halcyon.com)
Maxgraphic Digital Portfolio, http://www.halcyon.com/maxp/
John Doherty
| I also agree with a former post that pointed out the sillyness of needing
| windows to adopt GX to make it worthwhile.
As one of the folks who pointed to a single-platform implementation of GX
as being one of its problems, I'd like to point out here that windows
isn't one of the platforms I'm concerned about.
Barry Nathan
qu...@cs.uwa.edu.au (Quinn "The Eskimo!") wrote:
>ME!!! I'd love to be able to do things like...
>
>o create GX objects
>o use decent typography
>o do multi-language text
>o use sub-pixel accurate objects *reliably*
>
>...in simple (and affordable) program like ClarisWorks.
I know you're not supposed to make "me too" posts, but ...
ME TOO!!!
I think that there are more of us out there than the GX critics would like
to admit.
--
Barry Nathan Internet e-mail: bar...@netcom.com
______________________________________________________________________________
Standards, by their very nature, are nonstandard.
Finger me for my PGP public key.
Barry Nathan
>I suppose that GX will do the same for the amatuer typo as PS did, show
>him how little he knows and encourage him to learn more.
No, I think it will cause the same effect as TrueType - improve his/her
print quality vastly and with little effort.
>Can't you see it now, some real nice C.V., with ligatures and swashes all
>over the place, no consideration for size and application, "just because
>you could".
Frankly, I can't see it. I never saw people going around, using different
font sizes and styles "just because you can" when the Mac came out.
Barry Nathan
too soon]
In article <clive-22079...@158.152.67.91>,
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>Arghhhh! Not Avant Garde again, whenever there's a new type format, there
>it is leading the field, can't imagine why.
It's a nice, stylish font IMHO, and new features tend to suit it well.
>These so-called "rare ligatures" were, AFAIK, available as rub-down
>lettering, and are available in PostScript format.
Yes, but it's hard to use.
Barry Nathan
>> GX allows for standard roman fonts to
>> contain, what 32000, individual glyphs. Imagine what can be done with all
>> of that.
>
>I think you'll find that TrueType can do this, and look at the uptake
>there of such a facility. PostScript also supports this through multiple
>byte fonts for the Asian market.
The difference is that you can easily access the glyphs with GX, but
that's not so with TT and PS. That's why the extra glyph capability is
actually worth noting with GX.
TimothyA3
Wednesday, July 19, 1995 5:14:42 PM
Message
From: Tim Adams
Subject: Re(2): ReadySetGo 7 GX: initial impressions
To: comp.sys.mac.apps
Re >> | On the other hand, RSG never achieved the same level of success as
the
> | heavyweights.
>
> That's because it always sucked rocks.
I love that attitude. It keeps the cost of the software at a price level
regular people can afford.
Pagemaker was @ $195 when local (and I suppect all) Apple authorized
dealers started pushing it. The price went to $295. It was rated best by
MacWorld/MacUser between 3 programs (RSG and MacPublisher were the others)
and its price went to $495. It now sells for $895 suggested Retail with
mail order around $550.
Xpress is the newer of the three programs. It was reviewed poorly when it
was first released for having the 'lame' box type interface of RSG and not
the 'freeflow' look of PageMaker. It also got the name (round here
anyways) of (crXsh)press. I have even seen many posting on how touchy the
most recent version (3.31?) still is with several inits/cdevs installed.
As I never followed it after version 1 (cost wise) so can't give a full
history BUT believe when a review at 3.x in MacWorld/MacUser said it was
better than PageMaker, the price jumped from $495 to $895 (where it still
is) with mail order around $590.
RSG has always been a low cost program EXCEPT when LetraSet tried to keep
it up with the other two by increasing the cost without improving the
program. It sat there at $395 with little or no sales/support/interest
until Manhatten Graphics got it back. the first thing they did was reduce
the price and upgrade it.
At the same time it allows me to tell all those that I know that are
upgrading Xpress and Pagemaker and bragging about all the new features
that have been added, that 'I have been there and done that' with RSG, and
in most cases a year or two earlier!
As an example - auto text flow around illegular shapes. Pagemaker not yet
(version 7 maybe), Xpress - yes BUT over a year AFTER RSG had given it to
us.
Now, once again, I will be able to do that as Xpress and Pagemaker add
Quickdraw GX in a couple of years trying to keep up with RSG.
TimothyA3
and isn't Xpress based on RSG?
William E. Elston
(Humayun Lari) wrote:
> And it's not as though GX applications can't use *existing* Type 1 and
> TrueType fonts -- they certainly can. The GX extensions are simply icing
> on the cake (or in the case of fonts like Skia and Berlow's Millenium,
> which have variation axes, some would say they *are* the cake).
>
> Humayun Lari
> Author, LightningDraw GX, and generally realistic GX advocate
> (hl...@cybernetics.net)
And anyone who has seen a demonstration of this QD GX drawing application
(LightningDraw GX) knows that the horizons that this technology opens up
for the user are pretty bright indeed. The combination of GX savvy type
handling and the easy reshaping of letter forms open up possibilities that
I have seen in no other application, and present effects which previously
were only available to the professional calligrapher.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
Zeman) wrote:
> But it's NOT just a replacement technology. Remember that GX is layered
atop of standard QuickDraw. With GX installed (as I have) I can use any
GX-savvy program OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM like Quark or PM. It's sorta like
using a Windows machine after using a Mac there's such a letdown. What
tools need to be tossed?
>
> Every current application will work on a GX machine. Type 1 fonts can
be used. Where is the problem?
>
What is the point of installing something, modifying all your fonts and
using extra RAM if none of the applications you use support its
enhancements?
It's like filling your petrol tank with diesel, it's more efficient, but
it won't drive this motor.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
> In article <clive-22079...@158.152.67.91>,
> cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>
> > Incidentally isn't UniQorn based on XPress?
>
> Not even close. I have a suggestion, Clive.
That was a question, did you not see the "?"
> Before you continue with these
> endless defenses of the status quo, why don't you obtain one of the
> excellent GX savvy apps that are coming on the market, see what they can
> do, and why QD GX is different, and then marshall your arguments against
> it.
Excuse me, I was only reading and downloading all I could about GX a year
and a half ago, if not more, I am not defending the status quo (but they
*were* a great rock 'n' roll band), I will use whatever technology
presents itself as a way forward, unfortunately, while GX may offer a lot,
it doesn't give me the level of control and portability that I require,
when it does, I will gladly take it up, as I did Macintoshes when everyone
else in the world was sending out fro typesetting and using paste-up
artists.
> Most of the people that are posting pro have seen what it can do.
And do you suppose that I haven't, the problem with GX is not what it can
do, but what it can't, it doesn't work with any mainstream design,
illustration or layout packages, it is also RAM hungry.
Fix that and it'll be on my Mac tomorrow.
>
> In QD GX, a typeface can have 65,000 characters (not the aforementioned
> 32,000), easily accessible. A TT or PS font can have 256.
A multi-byte PS font can have more than 256 characters (a guess would be
32,000), TT fonts are already available with more than 256 characters
(again 32,000 I believe is the limit).
> So called expert
> sets consist of several sets of variously configured typfaces and using
> them is not nearly as simple or elegant as GX.
Simple or elegant doesn't come into it, as it happens I can switch to an
Expert set with a single keystroke (you know it's possible), control and
support with mainstream packages are the issue.
> Now, I *am sure* that the expert DTP guys have no
> use for this kind of expanded control and versatility, and they will shun
> GX, like the plague of DTP was shunned by the professional press in the
> eighties. What will happen is that a new generation of professionals and
> of applications will come along and put the old school out to pasture
> where they belong.
I have never heard so much bollocks in my life, do you really think that
anyone who owns a Mac, professional or not will reject a technology as
"smart" as GX, if and when it produces better results than the kit they
are currently using?
I don't know where you get this "pro" user image from, what we require is
*control*, 100% control and nothing less, we get that with PostScript, GX
wants to take some decisions out of our hands (or at least the level of
implementation at the moment does), we're not prepared to accept that,
that is why we adopted Macs and PS in the first place, we're not going to
throw that away on a product that has yet to prove itself.
Jess Holle
page, I have the following comments:
1) GX's possibilities for low-end, yet capable, drawing and layout applications
sound really impressive.
2) Almost all users will not install GX until:
(a) it is not optional,
(b) it only uses minute amounts of memory unless it is actually in use
(i.e. during printing or during GX drawing in an application), or
(c) it presents greater _immediate_ utility than easing printer management
(some of us only have 1 printer)
3) There are some major roadblocks to the immediate installation of GX:
(a) printer drivers -- I'd have to spend time with HP to get a GX driver...
(b) fax drivers -- most of us simply can't use our fax while GX is "on"
4) I'd really like to hear more about GX free/shareware _applications_ (i.e.
not printer utilities). I've just heard the name LightningDraw -- what
about it? How nice is it? Apple _really_ needs some demos along the lines
of their Graphing Calculator, but geared towards showing off GX.
For now, I see no reason to (practically) throw out 2 MB of RAM, lose my
fax abilities, and spend time chatting with HP's support staff. Can
anyone tell me any _good_ reason to install GX _now_ with only 1
printer??? Or is it so easy to turn on/off that I need to try out
LightningDraw (the only free/shareware application that I've heard of
using GX) and then turn it off???
--
Jess Holle (617)762-3658
jess...@netcom.com Norwood, MA
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
Nathan) wrote:
> In article <clive-22079...@158.152.67.91>,
> cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>
> >> GX allows for standard roman fonts to
> >> contain, what 32000, individual glyphs. Imagine what can be done with all
> >> of that.
> >
> >I think you'll find that TrueType can do this, and look at the uptake
> >there of such a facility. PostScript also supports this through multiple
> >byte fonts for the Asian market.
>
> The difference is that you can easily access the glyphs with GX, but
> that's not so with TT and PS. That's why the extra glyph capability is
> actually worth noting with GX.
But, not all of the control available for a GX font is implemented in any
program, so that puts them back on the same level.
I don't know a great deal about Chinese, Japanese and Korean fonts, but I
don't imagine that they can be too difficult to use, other ise there
wouldn't be a market for the PS versions, clearly there is.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
> [sorry about a second reply to the article - hit the send button a little
> too soon]
>
> In article <clive-22079...@158.152.67.91>,
> cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>
> >Arghhhh! Not Avant Garde again, whenever there's a new type format, there
> >it is leading the field, can't imagine why.
>
> It's a nice, stylish font IMHO, and new features tend to suit it well.
It was designed as a masthead, it should have stayed there, I don't know
what "new features" you are talking about as we have already established
that the "rare ligatures" have been around for 20 years or more.
If you really want a nice Sans font, take a look at Futura, that's a step
up, better still, Gill Sans and Frutiger are genuinely nice, stylish
fonts.
>
> >These so-called "rare ligatures" were, AFAIK, available as rub-down
> >lettering, and are available in PostScript format.
>
> Yes, but it's hard to use.
A single keystroke with 100% control? Please!
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
> In article <clive-22079...@158.152.67.91>,
> cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>
> >I suppose that GX will do the same for the amatuer typo as PS did, show
> >him how little he knows and encourage him to learn more.
>
> No, I think it will cause the same effect as TrueType - improve his/her
> print quality vastly and with little effort.
And just what did TT do that PS (maybe coupled with ATM) couldn't already do?
> >Can't you see it now, some real nice C.V., with ligatures and swashes all
> >over the place, no consideration for size and application, "just because
> >you could".
>
> Frankly, I can't see it. I never saw people going around, using different
> font sizes and styles "just because you can" when the Mac came out.
Are you joking, or have you had your head in the sand for the last ten
years, that is 100% exactly what happened with the Mac.
Hmm, I fancy a nice bit of Zapf Chancery, 200% expanded, force
italicised/emboldened with a drop shadow and outline right now.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> Now, of course, that will all change, right? Tomorrow I'll lose all
> my clients because some hot-shot is able to whip out more
> ligatures-per-hour than I can imagine, me with only my measly Expert Sets
> and typographic eye to guide me.
That's it isn't it, we're typographic snobs, we're idiots for not agreeing
that a font technology can do better than us. What I *really* want is a
load of ligatures and swashes in the middle of some body copy, I think
not.
>
> * GX doesn't do anything for designers PostScript can't do,
Can someone tell me something that GX can do that that PS can't (perhaps
with a little hassle) and I don't want to hear about 32-64,000 chars per
font, that's not a feature until the O/S supports the selection of each
and every one of them individually.
>
> GX is not vastly superior to PostScript.
Sad, but true!
>
> On the other hand, if the software I have now supported GX, it'd be
> another matter. If GX becomes a non-removable part of System 8, and Quark
> and Adobe adopt it, things would be much different. I have nothing against
> GX, I just think that on its current path it's not going to have an effect
> in this industry.
Hmm, did I say that? Maybe I just thought it, anyway I agree!
Except I would add "Yet" to the end of that paragraph, if GX doesn't do it
then it'll be PS level 5 or whatever.
Barry Nathan
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>And just what did TT do that PS (maybe coupled with ATM) couldn't already do?
Allow home users to have nice, sharp text on their (relatively)
inexpensive QuickDraw printers without using slow, RAM-hogging (in those
days, at least) ATM.
Gerard Hammond
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
> I wish GX well, but with no support from the big names (Quark,
> Adobe), it has almost no chance of success.
>
> --
> Max Pinton (ma...@halcyon.com)
I wonder. Lets say next year every new mac has quickdraw GX installed.
Surely this must spur on GX development. At the moment
most people haven't installed it., but as System 8 comes through
GX will be there as well.
From everything I read, GX will be an important differentiating advantage
to the Macintosh platform. I would hazard a guess that Adobe wants to
implement
GX (They are still Mac people at the core) but needs to get the business
numbers right. (ie large numbers of Mac with GX installed.)
I think GX has a lot going for it.
Gerard
--
best regards,
Gerard Hammond
MacSOS Consulting
3/14 Edensor St
Epping NSW Australia
Mac...@eworld.com
Ph: 019 46 5959
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
Nathan) wrote:
> In article <clive-23079...@158.152.67.91>,
> cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>
> >And just what did TT do that PS (maybe coupled with ATM) couldn't already do?
>
> Allow home users to have nice, sharp text on their (relatively)
> inexpensive QuickDraw printers without using slow, RAM-hogging (in those
> days, at least) ATM.
So like I thought, nothing.
RAM-hogging ATM? And your advocating we all switch to GX!
Quinn The Eskimo!
Lane) wrote:
>le...@adobe.com (David Lemon) writes:
>> ... But in the professional
>> publication world, the resulting files go through prepress software
>> that runs only on Sun or SGI servers. I don't envision GX "making my
>> life easier" there; it looks like a barrier to me.
>
>I'll extend this a little further: the big trouble with GX is its poor
>support, or even militant non-support, for PostScript (Type 1) fonts.
>Any Mac user who might be interested in GX's advanced type handling
>capabilities has more than likely got tens, hundreds, even thousands
>of Type 1 fonts. Apple expects us to convert these into an
>incompatible format; worse, to *KEEP TWO SETS OF FONTS ON DISK* so as
>to be able to keep working with non-GX applications. This is a
>non-starter. (The bugs and shortcomings of the converter app don't
>help any, either.)
>
>Why in the world wasn't GX designed to be able to work with unmodified
>Type 1 fonts? It might cost a few extra microseconds here and there,
>but it could surely be done. The converter obviously is not adding
>any information that isn't available in the Type 1 file.
I heard this issue raised at WWDC and was amazed at how little contact the
GX team had with the DTP people about this issue. Given that, it's still
obviously true that GX fonts must be stored in 'sfnt' resources, not in
type 1 files and that the convertor is necessary. So yes, you are going
to have to convert your fonts.
You then have to ask yourself, why do I need to keep 2 copies? The answer
is that you shouldn't have to, but it's not GX that should change. *ATM
should support resource based type 1 fonts!*
Share and Enjoy.
--
Quinn "The Eskimo!" "Space army! I'd death ray my grandmother
for a space army about now."
William E. Elston
jess...@netcom.com (Jess Holle) wrote:
> For now, I see no reason to (practically) throw out 2 MB of RAM, lose my
> fax abilities, and spend time chatting with HP's support staff. Can
> anyone tell me any _good_ reason to install GX _now_ with only 1
> printer??? Or is it so easy to turn on/off that I need to try out
> LightningDraw (the only free/shareware application that I've heard of
> using GX) and then turn it off???
First, you can obtain the requisite HP GX drivers via
<ftp://ftp-boi.external.hp.com/pub/printers/laserjet/mac/>
As for turning on and off, I found it saved me some headaches and
extension incompatabilities to install QD GX on a separate system on my
external HD, and leave the old printing architecture on my internal
primary boot disk. So turning GX on and off simply requires switching
systems and restarting. The same thing could be done with Conflict Catcher
or any other extensions manager.
Thirdly, You should be able to find a couple of Apple demos that show of
some of QD GX's cool stuff without spending any money. Look for "Poster"
at the usual ftp sites, or "GX Write", last seen at the QD GX Fanclub Home
Page (is that back on line?)
I am not sure that LightningDraw GX is shipping yet, but I've heard that
it will be relatively inexpensive. Its feature set and fluid working
environment should make it well worth the price.
I think that once you check out the possibilities, you won't be worried
about the RAM overhead or the lack of cross-platform support. You'll
simply wonder why the rest of the world isn't up to speed yet.
Kenneth Trueman
wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
>In article <jessholl-230...@netcomsv.netcom.com>,
>jess...@netcom.com (Jess Holle) wrote:
>
>> For now, I see no reason to (practically) throw out 2 MB of RAM, lose my
>> fax abilities, and spend time chatting with HP's support staff. Can
>> anyone tell me any _good_ reason to install GX _now_ with only 1
>> printer??? Or is it so easy to turn on/off that I need to try out
>> LightningDraw (the only free/shareware application that I've heard of
>> using GX) and then turn it off???
>
>First, you can obtain the requisite HP GX drivers via
>
><ftp://ftp-boi.external.hp.com/pub/printers/laserjet/mac/>
Or if you start here, you'll have the choice of looking for Deskwriter
drivers too. :-)
<ftp://ftp-boi.external.hp.com/pub/printers/>
Actually HP is the most profiient provider of drivers for its printers.
It has more GX drivers than Apple. ( The only one I'm still waiting on is
the DesignJet 650c (that big master-blaster plotter) So let's sing a big
Hooray for HP!
>Thirdly, You should be able to find a couple of Apple demos that show of
>some of QD GX's cool stuff without spending any money. Look for "Poster"
>at the usual ftp sites, or "GX Write", last seen at the QD GX Fanclub Home
>Page (is that back on line?)
The GX Fan Club should be back online soon. The ISDN is in place, waiting
on the Internet connction and the domain name registration. Until then,
make sure to check out the August issue of MacSense - the Macintosh
e-zine. GX Fans are in for a nice monthly surprise. :-) Lots fo other
things coming up too ...
>I am not sure that LightningDraw GX is shipping yet, but I've heard that
>it will be relatively inexpensive. Its feature set and fluid working
>environment should make it well worth the price.
It was supposed to ship in April-May but got a delayed a wee bit. I don't
hink it should be TOO long now. I'd love to keep answering this part of
the question but I'd probably get into trouble ... :-) (You know when
someone asks you a question you know you're not supposed to answer....
Read between the lines .... now read deeper. :-)
>I think that once you check out the possibilities, you won't be worried
>about the RAM overhead or the lack of cross-platform support. You'll
>simply wonder why the rest of the world isn't up to speed yet.
I must have supertuned my system, because wirh stuff like ATM, Now
Utilities and System 7.5.1 as well as GX 1.1.2 (and lots more) on my 6100,
my system only takes 4.4 MB ... for anyone else wth a PMac, that sounds
like par for the course, even without GX ...
One of the plans of the GX team for Copland is that GX will become like
the equivalent of a shred library in the way it uses RAM. Only when GX is
called into action will it take up RAM. (The same way QuickDraw 3D does
now.) This should make GX alot more palatable for users in the future.
:)
Kenneth
--
ktru...@cmq.qc.ca
Looking for info on GX, check out the QuickDraw GX Fan Club page :
(space to be filled soon)
Mark P. Fishman
>
> The coming of PostScript and the LaserWriter in 1985 was a giant step
> backwards for the WYSIWYG idea. The printer had a completely different
> graphics model, which was superior in a lot of ways, inferior in some
> others. Sure, the printer had much nicer-looking fonts. But try using any
> of those fancy QuickDraw drawing modes or clipping regions, and the result
> wouldn't print.
>
> It's been 10 years, and PostScript hasn't really improved. We're *still*
> tearing our hair out trying to make sure that printed documents look
> something like we thought they did on-screen. And for some strange reason,
> it still isn't easy to view PostScript graphics on-screen.
>
Lawrence:
What you're saying is that the improvement of one form of output
device is bad because it means that different output devices have
different capabilities. WYSIWYG should be WYSIWYLT: what you see is
what you are limited to.
I reject this notion entirely. When you deliver me a video display
with 1200dpi resolution (regardless of the number of inches across
the display) to match my printer, when that video display has 100:1
or better contrast ratio, and when it uses a subtractive-color
model like ink or paint, then we'll talk about WYSIWYG.
Meanwhile, Postscript has improved. Display Postscript has been
delivering the same imaging model on screen and printer for many
years: look at NeXT for just *one* example. Apple has been stuck
in the proprietary swamp of QuickDraw for reasons that have nothing
to do with WYSIWYG.
QuickDraw based printers have been made, and didn't sell too well
to people concerned about appearance on paper.
Now Apple wants to extend their proprietary imaging model to
more-capable printing by adding more proprietary features. There's a
winning idea!
Wouldn't it be easier to adopt Display Postscript for the Mac?
Cheers -- Mark F.
Mark P. Fishman
>
> I suppose that GX will do the same for the amatuer typo as PS did, show
> him how little he knows and encourage him to learn more.
>
> over the place, no consideration for size and application, "just because
> you could".
>
My fear is that GX will do the same thing PS has done in many cases,
to wit, show the amateur typographer's victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hreaders
how little the a.t. knows, while the a.t. never finds out the value
of restraint or learning.
Many amateurs have learned a lot and benefitted enormously from
the power and flexibility of PS and DTP. I do not denigrate the tools.
Many more, however, who by their temperament and ego show that they
are not prepared to learn from history, have inflicted godawful
results on readers. These people need fewer, more constrained tools,
so they will do less damage.
Brilliance needs the chance to fail brilliantly. Mediocrity needs
reliable, safe mediocrity.
There. That should get the conversation going. <g>
Cheers -- Mark F.
Mark Burgess
mac...@eworld.com (Gerard Hammond) wrote:
: From everything I read, GX will be an important differentiating advantage
: to the Macintosh platform. [...]
Too bad that would result in platform-centric files -- isn't that the
*opposite* of what people want?
--
Mark
Mark Burgess
: [...]
: ...in simple (and affordable) program like ClarisWorks. To do this with
: current Mac software I have to buy Freehand, PageMaker and so on, which
: cost a fortune. Why do they cost a fortune? Because the people who wrote
: them had to develop them from scratch. GX allows for cheaper, better
: quality software.
Fine, as long as you won't be asking us to make films from your
ClarisWorks file... Our Postscript rip doesn't do GX (it doesn't do
TrueType or PDF, either -- no real loss so far).
--
Mark
Mark Burgess
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
: In article <rmcassid-190...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
: (Robert Cassidy) wrote:
: > ..In case you hadn't noticed,
: > most people that use PM and Quark don't do trapping and seps. They want
: > basic typography and page layout.
:
: Er, well not really, *I* want advanced typography and layout, *and* I want
: to be able to control trapping and seps when required, although I'm
: usually happy to leave that part to the repro-house who output the films.
...Being that repro house, we are already having nightmares about the
compatibility issues we will face. Looks like we will have to have some of
our machines running Copland/GX and others running 7.5/Postscript. There's
*no way* we can expect our customers to upgrade to Copland (geez, we still
get lots of files from FreeHand 3). So we will be stuck supporting both
formats -- IF our graphics apps and rip even get GX support. Hopefully
Adobe or somebody will write a hack for Copland that allows it to use
Postscript.
--
Mark
Lawrence DąOliveiro
ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>GX is not vastly superior to PostScript.
Yes it is. Consider one of the selling points of the original Macintosh in
1984: WYSIWYG ("What You See Is What You Get") in the creation of
documents. That is, the way a document printed was supposed to be close
enough to the way it appeared on screen that you had very few surprises,
and hence less need to keep doing test prints until it looked the way you
wanted.
The coming of PostScript and the LaserWriter in 1985 was a giant step
backwards for the WYSIWYG idea. The printer had a completely different
graphics model, which was superior in a lot of ways, inferior in some
others. Sure, the printer had much nicer-looking fonts. But try using any
of those fancy QuickDraw drawing modes or clipping regions, and the result
wouldn't print.
It's been 10 years, and PostScript hasn't really improved. We're *still*
tearing our hair out trying to make sure that printed documents look
something like we thought they did on-screen. And for some strange reason,
it still isn't easy to view PostScript graphics on-screen.
Along comes QuickDraw GX. It's a whole new graphics model from top to
bottom. It's designed from the start to deal with interactive on-screen
graphics, yet it is also powerful enough to produce high-quality printed
output, limited only by the physical capabilities of your output device.
At last--a return to the original ideal of WYSIWYG!
GX isn't going to kill PostScript overnight. But then, it doesn't need
to--the two can continue to coexist for as long as anybody wants.
The main cost of GX is the RAM it takes. This cost is rather less than the
price difference between a PostScript and a non-PostScript printer. Why
buy the more expensive model, when GX can give you exactly the same output
quality with the cheaper one?
THAT is the sort of seed from which a revolution starts...
Michael Peirce
In article <rmc1-24079...@blv-pm0-ip19.halcyon.com> (comp.fonts,comp.sys.mac.apps), rm...@halcyon.com (Mark Burgess) writes:
> ...Being that repro house, we are already having nightmares about the
> compatibility issues we will face. Looks like we will have to have some of
> our machines running Copland/GX and others running 7.5/Postscript. There's
> *no way* we can expect our customers to upgrade to Copland (geez, we still
> get lots of files from FreeHand 3). So we will be stuck supporting both
> formats -- IF our graphics apps and rip even get GX support. Hopefully
> Adobe or somebody will write a hack for Copland that allows it to use
> Postscript.
Let's not get carried away here. QuickDraw GX plays fine in a
PostScript world.
If someone has a PostScript-centric app, say Freehand. And they
want to emit PostScript directly to the printer and not support
non-PostScript output, THEY CAN DO THIS! They need to work
through the new printing API, just as they do with the current
printing API, but there is nothing in GX that nukes PostScript.
If you think Apple is going to make it so that Freehand,
Illustrator, etc., don't work under Copland, then I think you
are gravely mistaken. Of course, these apps will HAVE to work.
Who ever said they wouldn't? Not anyone who knows anything
about GX.
P.S. Look at the GX printing API sometime. There is all sorts
of stuff in there TO SUPPORT POSTSCRIPT SPECIFIC STUFF. One
example is that printing an EPS graphic is much simplied (just
stuff your EPS data in a tag (i.e. handle) and attach that to a
preview picture). Another is example is that you can create
printing extensions that are specific to PostScript devices.
The Apple GX engineers thought through this stuff quite well.
--
Michael Peirce mpe...@peircesw.com
Peirce Softare Inc. 719 Hibiscus Place, San Jose California 95117 USA
voice: +1 408 244 6554, fax: +1 408 244 6882
Makers of Peirce Print Tools, Smoothie, AppSizer, DeskPicture, & ShareDraw
<ftp://mirrors.aol.com/pub/info-mac/cfg/app-sizer-22.hqx>
<ftp://mirrors.aol.com/pub/info-mac/gui/desk-picture-401.hqx>
<ftp://mirrors.aol.com/pub/info-mac/gst/grf/share-draw-20.hqx>
L. Peter Deutsch
> 1984: WYSIWYG ("What You See Is What You Get") in the creation of
> documents. That is, the way a document printed was supposed to be close
> enough to the way it appeared on screen that you had very few surprises,
> and hence less need to keep doing test prints until it looked the way you
> wanted.
That's exactly what many people (including at least two newspaper production
system vendors) use Ghostscript for, and they're very satisfied with it.
> It's been 10 years, and PostScript hasn't really improved. We're *still*
> tearing our hair out trying to make sure that printed documents look
> something like we thought they did on-screen.
I wonder why. PostScript, with compatible fonts, makes this trivial.
> And for some strange reason, it still isn't easy to view PostScript graphics
> on-screen.
Define 'easy'. There are tens of thousands of Ghostscript and GSview users
on the net (and off the net) who have been doing it for years. Ghostscript
runs on *all* platforms, not just Macintosh, and has been doing so almost
since its first release in 1988.
> The main cost of GX is the RAM it takes. This cost is rather less than the
> price difference between a PostScript and a non-PostScript printer. Why
> buy the more expensive model, when GX can give you exactly the same output
> quality with the cheaper one?
Why pay extra $$ for a PostScript printer, when Ghostscript running on your
desktop can do the same job (and, given that desktop CPUs have been
improving faster than printer CPUs, probably faster)? Ghostscript is free
to end-users.
I've been following the GX controversy here, and while I'm quite willing to
believe that Apple's integration of it into the OS will do what Sun wanted
to do with NeWS and Adobe wanted to do with DPS (and neither succeeded at
doing) in terms of making a more powerful graphics and text model the de
facto standard for applications, I'm also not at all convinced that this is
because of some deep technical superiority over PostScript as opposed to
better market positioning. I haven't yet seen a posting here of features of
GX that are unavailable in PostScript; the only specific one that was
claimed was the ability to handle very large character sets, which (as was
properly observed) PostScript can do at least as well.
L. Peter Deutsch :: Aladdin Enterprises :: P.O. box 60264, Palo Alto, CA 94306
gh...@aladdin.com; voice +1-415-322-0103 (8:30 AM - noon); fax +1-415-322-1734
"Implementation is the sincerest form of flattery."
John Doherty
| Why buy the more expensive model, when GX can give you exactly the same
| output quality with the cheaper one?
The point is that it can't give exactly "the same output quality," at least
not with any advantage. Sure, if you stick with the extremely limited set
of GX fonts and the even more extremely limited (as in, none of them but
SimpleText are shipping yet) GX apps, you can do some things that you could
do anyway, albeit more easily, there may be some slight advantage. But for
those of who own more than 1500 Type 1 fonts and bought every single one
of them because real jobs required them (which is to say, those of us who
set type for a living), GX offers nothing that I can see, at least not yet.
When the customer specifies that the book sets in Janson (or Sabon, or
Granjon, or Plantin, or Trump, or any one of hundreds of other fonts that
aren't available in GX format), why would I use GX to make the book? What
would I gain by trying?
When GX offers us a way to make money, believe me, we'll use it. Until then,
it's about as interesting as colonizing Mars.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
> The combination of GX savvy type
> handling and the easy reshaping of letter forms open up possibilities that
> I have seen in no other application, and present effects which previously
> were only available to the professional calligrapher.
What do you mean by "easy reshaping", is type converted to outlines and
edited with Beziers, or something else?
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
> In article <maxp-22079...@blv-pm0-ip26.halcyon.com>,
> ma...@halcyon.com (Max Pinton) wrote:
>
> >GX is not vastly superior to PostScript.
>
> Yes it is. Consider one of the selling points of the original Macintosh in
> 1984: WYSIWYG ("What You See Is What You Get") in the creation of
> documents. That is, the way a document printed was supposed to be close
> enough to the way it appeared on screen that you had very few surprises,
> and hence less need to keep doing test prints until it looked the way you
> wanted.
Aren't we forgeting killer app numero uno "ATM", what I see is what I get~!
>
> But try using any
> of those fancy QuickDraw drawing modes or clipping regions, and the result
> wouldn't print.
Right, like they're implemented in all sorts of Mac programs!
>
> It's been 10 years, and PostScript hasn't really improved. We're *still*
> tearing our hair out trying to make sure that printed documents look
> something like we thought they did on-screen.
I don't know what you're doing wrong, but I have no such problem, do you
have ATM?
> And for some strange reason,
> it still isn't easy to view PostScript graphics on-screen.
Except in a PostScript graphics editing program like Illustrator or
FreeHand, or Adobe Acrobat.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
rm...@halcyon.com (Mark Burgess) wrote:
Think again, not platform specific, OS specific!
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
qu...@cs.uwa.edu.au (Quinn "The Eskimo!") wrote:
> In article <clive-24079...@158.152.67.91>,
> I think the argument from WWDC was that if you install two GX applications
> (a drawing program and a page layout progarm for example) you end up
> saving back the RAM that you've lost to GX and more. Their examples were
> LightningDrawGX + Uniquorn versus Freehand + PageMaker.
>
Well sure that'd be real nice, go out and buy some new programs, then
learn how to use them, just so I can do what I already do.
Give me GX Savvy XPress and Illustrator, then we can talk about it.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
> In article <clive-23079...@158.152.67.91>,
> cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>
> >Can someone tell me something that GX can do that that PS can't (perhaps
> >with a little hassle) and I don't want to hear about 32-64,000 chars per
> >font, that's not a feature until the O/S supports the selection of each
> >and every one of them individually.
>
...
> Bring up Apple Chancery, and have a browse through its 1036 glyphs. Try
> copying one of them to the Clipboard, and pasting it into an existing
> GX-unaware application, like MacWrite Pro, and printing it through the GX
> printing system onto any printer (PostScript or not) you have handy. Try
> scaling the image up, and see how good it looks.
Ok, that's neat (I'll try it), but it doesn't simplify anything, in fact
that seems more complicated than selecting an expert set.
Clive Bruton/Typonaut
> OK, then how about transfer modes?
What?
> Perspective transforms?
Plug In for Illustrator and Freehand, native in CorelDraw and LetraStudio
> High-quality
> display on-screen? (Try doing that with EPS files.)
Have you ever placed a Freehand EPS into XPress, take a close look, that's
no bitmap header. Also you can program Acrobat to render into another apps
window.
> Full-quality printing
> on non-PostScript printers? (Try doing that with EPS files.)
Oh sure, GX would look real good on a dot matrix or golf-ball printer.
Besides Freedom of Press for one renders PS to non-PS printers.
> The ability
> to interchange high-quality graphics between applications, that remain
> *fully editable* at every stage? (Try doing that with EPS files.)
What are you saying, I can edit graphics in SimpleText?
I believe there is an XTension for XPress that allows Bezier based
drawing, but I dare say Illustrator does it much better.
Freehand can open Illustrator files, is that not high-quality graphics
exchange, if you want to go all the way I can get Illustrator to open
files orignated in any app that can produce a PS file (via Acrobat).
>
> I tried something else with ReadySetGo today, involving transparency
> effects, to see how they would print on our Phaser 540 colour laser ("But
> PostScript doesn't do transparency effects!"
No, but PS does allow overprinting, which, if the output is print, amounts
to the same thing. There is also a set of tools within Illustrator that
can "fake" transparency, even for the screen.
Adam E. Ek
|> > The price for the full package is US$395. Upgrading from RSG 6 is US$69.95;
|> > from an earlier version it is US$89.95. Prices don't include shipping (they
|> > charged me an extra US$21 for that).
|>
|> Hmmm...upgrade my ReadySetGo 1.0 for $89.95...*pondering the possibilities* ;)
Are there any sidegrade offers? Pagemaker to Ready Set Go?
Adam Ek
ae...@ingr.com
Barry Nathan
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>Besides Freedom of Press for one renders PS to non-PS printers.
Yes, but it's not as fast as GX.
Barry Nathan
rm...@halcyon.com (Mark Burgess) wrote:
>In order to send any file to my rip, I need to make a postscript dump...
>last I heard, GX couldn't do that. Is that still true? If so, then I can't
>make films *at all* when GX is installed! I'm hoping that our vendor will
>find a way around the problem, but they're not the most responsive: they
>did not update their PPD for FreeHand 4's printing problems until a month
>before 5.0 came out!
GX can do PostScript dumps. It's an option in the LaserWriter GX driver
plus (if you really need full control) the EPS Extension.
Michael Peirce
In article <jdoherty-250...@ivy-a7.ip.realtime.net> (comp.fonts,comp.sys.mac.apps), jdoh...@bga.com (John Doherty) writes:
> The point is that it can't give exactly "the same output quality," at least
> not with any advantage. Sure, if you stick with the extremely limited set
> of GX fonts and the even more extremely limited (as in, none of them but
> SimpleText are shipping yet) GX apps, you can do some things that you could
> do anyway, albeit more easily, there may be some slight advantage. But for
> those of who own more than 1500 Type 1 fonts and bought every single one
> of them because real jobs required them (which is to say, those of us who
> set type for a living), GX offers nothing that I can see, at least not yet.
Type 1 fonts *are* GX fonts. QuickDraw GX uses a plug in font system.
There are currently rasterizers that ship AS PART OF GX: TrueType and Type
1 (ATM). Let me say it again, ATM ships as partof GX and works very
well in a GX world.
Plain old TrueType fonts work perfectly well with QuickDraw GX. Newer
TrueType GX fonts work well too - they have expanded gylph selections
and addition tables and such.
Plain old Type 1 fonts work perfectly well with QuickDraw GX. ATM
ships as part of GX. There is no second class status for Type 1 fonts
in QuickDraw GX.
> When the customer specifies that the book sets in Janson (or Sabon, or
> Granjon, or Plantin, or Trump, or any one of hundreds of other fonts that
> aren't available in GX format), why would I use GX to make the book? What
> would I gain by trying?
One last time. Type 1 is a fully supported, encouraged, QuickDraw
GX font format. I've used many many Type 1 fonts with GX installed
on my system and even in savvy apps like Ligntning Draw. Type 1 fonts
can be use to do all the cool GX things I can do with TrueType fonts.
(I just typed in some plain old Type-1 Courier text, put into perspective,
then converted it to a GX shape sho I could fill with with a imported
bitmap picture. All done with a bea copy of Lightning Draw).
Relax folks. GX can play just fine in your PostScript/Type 1 world
you all have built for yourselves.
Lawrence DąOliveiro
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>Can someone tell me something that GX can do that that PS can't (perhaps
>with a little hassle) and I don't want to hear about 32-64,000 chars per
>font, that's not a feature until the O/S supports the selection of each
>and every one of them individually.
This is a standard GX feature. It's not even hard to do, and I wrote a
simple program--nay, not even a real application, just a HyperCard
stack--to prove it. You can get it at
<ftp://sumex-aim.stanford.edu/info-mac/font/util/gx-font-display-hc.hqx>,
or your favourite Sumex mirror. It requires HyperCard 2.2 (or later) and,
of course, a system running GX.
Michael Peirce
In article <clive-25079...@158.152.67.91> (comp.fonts,comp.sys.mac.apps), cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) writes:
> What do you mean by "easy reshaping", is type converted to outlines and
> edited with Beziers, or something else?
Sure. Any of the above. Take your pick.
Adam E. Ek
that support QuickDraw GX and all of its features? Not applications that
might someday support it, I mean applications that I can buy today.
Adam Ek
ae...@ingr.com
Mark Burgess
mpe...@outpost.peircesw.com (Michael Peirce) wrote:
: Relax folks. GX can play just fine in your PostScript/Type 1 world
: you all have built for yourselves.
In order to send any file to my rip, I need to make a postscript dump...
last I heard, GX couldn't do that. Is that still true? If so, then I can't
make films *at all* when GX is installed! I'm hoping that our vendor will
find a way around the problem, but they're not the most responsive: they
did not update their PPD for FreeHand 4's printing problems until a month
before 5.0 came out!
--
Mark
Mark Burgess
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
: In article <rmc1-24079...@blv-pm0-ip19.halcyon.com>,
: rm...@halcyon.com (Mark Burgess) wrote:
: > Too bad that would result in platform-centric files -- isn't that the
: > *opposite* of what people want?
:
: Think again, not platform specific, OS specific!
Oh yeah! Forgot about those clones... So I'll be able to share GX files
with Mac users *and* Power Computing users. :-|
--
Mark
Rick Zeman
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
|In article <rzeman-2207...@rzeman.his.com>, rze...@his.com (Rick
|Zeman) wrote:
|
|> But it's NOT just a replacement technology. Remember that GX is layered
|atop of standard QuickDraw. With GX installed (as I have) I can use any
|GX-savvy program OR ANY OTHER PROGRAM like Quark or PM. It's sorta like
|using a Windows machine after using a Mac there's such a letdown. What
|tools need to be tossed?
What tools need to be tossed?
|> Every current application will work on a GX machine. Type 1 fonts can
|be used. Where is the problem?
|>
|
|What is the point of installing something, modifying all your fonts and
|using extra RAM if none of the applications you use support its
|enhancements?
Who said that? A good part of the apps that I use (Word, Excel, BBEdit
among others) support the GX Print Manager.
|It's like filling your petrol tank with diesel, it's more efficient, but
|it won't drive this motor.
Nice analogy, but wholly a non-sequiter.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Rick Zeman Romance is dead. It was acquired in a hostile
rze...@mail.his.com takeover by Hallmark and Disney, homogenized,
Will Rogers never met Bill Clinton and sold off piece by piece...
Rick Zeman
|In article <clive-23079...@158.152.67.91>,
|cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
|
|>And just what did TT do that PS (maybe coupled with ATM) couldn't already do?
|
|Allow home users to have nice, sharp text on their (relatively)
|inexpensive QuickDraw printers without using slow, RAM-hogging (in those
|days, at least) ATM.
It's changed? ATM is still RAM-hogging!
Robert Cassidy
jess...@netcom.com (Jess Holle) wrote:
> For now, I see no reason to (practically) throw out 2 MB of RAM, lose my
> fax abilities, and spend time chatting with HP's support staff. Can
> anyone tell me any _good_ reason to install GX _now_ with only 1
> printer??? Or is it so easy to turn on/off that I need to try out
> LightningDraw (the only free/shareware application that I've heard of
> using GX) and then turn it off???
I don't know about 2MB of RAM. If you run RD (a lot of people do anyway)
and you have a PMac (GX seems to be smaller on a PMac) then I think you
are looking at <1MB of RAM.
Anyway.
GX does a lot more than just better graphics and typography. In this
office we use GX primarily with a single printer. It's difficult for
people to keep track of what kind of paper is in what tray, etc. (we have
an LWPro810 with 3 trays) and the paper matching capabilities of GX are
wonderful. It is how printing should always have been done.
You create a paper type for every kind of paper that you print to -
setting the size, orientation, and margins. So if you have letterhead,
memo, and plain, they're all 8.5x11 but they all have different margins.
People have a hard time keeping track of the margins and the paper
locations. With GX you pick the paper type in page setup and the app
adjusts the margins according to the paper - works with non-GX apps as
well. When you print to say Letterhead, GX checks the printer for the
right kind of paper. If it can't find it in one of the trays then it asks
you if you want to do it manually or to swap the paper in one of the
trays. It has practically eliminated people printing to the wrong paper or
using the wrong margins - nice for an office that does 1000-2000 pages a
month not to have a few hundred screwed up for those reasons.
Its a much more logical way of printing. It's only one good solution that
GX offers and there are many others.
--
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine
Jim Wong
>In order to send any file to my rip, I need to make a postscript dump...
>last I heard, GX couldn't do that. Is that still true? If so, then I can't
No.
--
Jim Wong (jd-...@uiuc.edu)
Kenneth Trueman
cl...@d-supp.demon.co.uk (Clive Bruton/Typonaut) wrote:
>In article <welston-2307...@blv-pm10-ip18.halcyon.com>,
>wel...@halcyon.com (William E. Elston) wrote:
>
>> The combination of GX savvy type
>> handling and the easy reshaping of letter forms open up possibilities that
>> I have seen in no other application, and present effects which previously
>> were only available to the professional calligrapher.
>
>
>What do you mean by "easy reshaping", is type converted to outlines and
>edited with Beziers, or something else?
Easy reshaping !?! : You can drag and twist and turn and skew your text in
any old way you like. Adn it remains entirely one0hundred percent
editable. You may also if you like (and this depends upon the program and
the way they implement it) convert the text to an outline, and then edit
it as bezier curves. No problem !!!!
Clive, talk to me after MacWorld when I can go into more detail.. :-) NDA
obliges.
>Clive Bruton (AKA The Typonaut)
:-)
Kenneth
--
ktru...@cmq.qc.ca
Looking for info on GX, check out the QuickDraw GX Fan Club page :
(space to be filled soon)