OT: Ghostscript, won't install
Joerg
IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
and make it install?
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
"gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
Use another domain or send PM.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Gents,
>
>IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
>those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
>gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>
>No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
>valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
>and make it install?
Make sure you have the right versions. You also need GSView which
"calls" Ghostscript... I have GSView v3.5 running on XP.
IIRC, there is a specific order of installation required to make it
work.
Since I can print to PS from PSpice, and Acrobat will convert PS to
PDF, I rarely use it unless I run into scaling issues... like cutting
E-size into multiple A-size sheets :-(
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Spice is like a sports car...
Performance only as good as the person behind the wheel.
Sjouke Burry
> Gents,
>
> IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
> those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
> gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>
> No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
> valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
> and make it install?
>
for gsview and gostview, open gpl software.
Martin Riddle
"Joerg" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8dr3rf...@mid.individual.net...
Try Sourceforge instead.
<http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/files/GPL%20Ghostscript/>
I used Ghostfriend in the past, worked well to convert PS to PDF
<http://www.noliturbare.com/convert/ghostfriend-formerly-gobatchgs>
Cheers
Sjouke Burry
> Gents,
>
> IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
> those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
> gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>
> No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
> valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
> and make it install?
>
I use gsview32.exe.
From their site:
GSview can be obtained from http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/
It does not seem to be free.
Joerg
That's exactly where I got it from :-)
Joerg
> "Joerg" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8dr3rf...@mid.individual.net...
>> Gents,
>>
>> IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
>> those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I
>> downloaded
>> gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>>
>> No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not
>> a
>> valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
>> and make it install?
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Joerg
>>
>> http://www.analogconsultants.com/
>>
>> "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam.
>> Use another domain or send PM.
>
> Try Sourceforge instead.
>
> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/files/GPL%20Ghostscript/>
>
135 megabytes, shazam! The bloat from version to version looks (almost)
like the budget defizit :-)
> I used Ghostfriend in the past, worked well to convert PS to PDF
> <http://www.noliturbare.com/convert/ghostfriend-formerly-gobatchgs>
>
But from the text it looks like you still need Ghostscript, and that's
what refuses to install.
Why couldn't society just quietly bury Postscript ...
Joerg
Got that already. The problem is, one must first install Ghostscript for
which GSView is the GUI. Unfortunately Ghostscript is recalcitrant upon
installation. I have no idea why. The Linux boxen here which functions
as a file server has that problem a lot but the Windows computer never
does. Or never did, until today.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
'Cause PS is a fabulous language... ask Don Lancaster...
Sjouke Burry
> Gents,
>
> IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
> those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
> gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>
> No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
> valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
> and make it install?
>
gs871w32.exe
and
gsv49w32.exe
from that site.
They work(sort of), with a nag popup.
Joerg
> Gents,
>
> IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
> those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
> gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>
> No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
> valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
> and make it install?
>
Guys, figured it out: I had to erase and download two more times, then
it stuck. It installed alright. Now I can see the files but it's nearly
not as good as PDF. Did I already say that I never liked Postscript? :-)
Joerg
It's the pits, IMHO. Renders lettering poorly, overwrites when the font
size is wrongly interpreted. Nah, I ditched that long ago, early 90's.
Now it came back, maybe as a ghost :-)
Oh, and when I print to PDF I get a blank sheet. Great.
Joerg
Got them installed as well. Mine don't nag but the rendering is rather poor.
Martin Riddle
"Joerg" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:8dr8s5...@mid.individual.net...
Did you add it (GS) to the path?
My Computer-> Properties->Advanced tab , Environment button.
Add ;C:\Program Files\gs\gs8.71\bin;C:\Program Files\gs\gs8.71\lib;
Make sure you have the correct path.
Cheers
Michael A. Terrell
Joerg wrote:
>
> Joerg wrote:
> > Gents,
> >
> > IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
> > those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
> > gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
> >
> > No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
> > valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
> > and make it install?
> >
>
> Guys, figured it out: I had to erase and download two more times, then
> it stuck. It installed alright. Now I can see the files but it's nearly
> not as good as PDF. Did I already say that I never liked Postscript? :-)
You should uninstall crap with Revo Uninstaller. It will remove all
registry entries and empty folders, if you use it properly.
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
Rich Webb
wrote:
>Joerg wrote:
>> Gents,
>>
>> IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
>> those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
>> gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>>
>> No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
>> valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
>> and make it install?
>>
>
>Guys, figured it out: I had to erase and download two more times, then
>it stuck. It installed alright. Now I can see the files but it's nearly
>not as good as PDF. Did I already say that I never liked Postscript? :-)
It won't display as nicely with the Ghostscript viewer as one has come
to expect from pdf viewers. GSview is more of a preview app for page
layout and such, and doesn't do the rendering tricks with sub-pixel
anti-aliasing and gamma correction that pdf viewers pretty much all
handle nowadays. It expects that the .ps file will be sent onwards to a
high-resolution printer for final rendering.
But, a Ghostscript installation does come with the necessary tools to
convert .ps to .pdf. There are probably wrappers that put ribbons and
bows on this, but all you should need to do is to copy the .ps file to
the directory in the GS install that has ps2pdf14.bat (probably the lib
directory) and run it from the command line against your .ps file. The
result should be a good looking .pdf file.
--
Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Phil Hobbs
I use Ghostscript under Cygwin, so the nice Cygwin setup.exe looks after
all that installation stuff.
Sometimes the font hinting gets lost in the process, so that it doesn't
render well on the screen, but printers have no problems with it IME.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal
ElectroOptical Innovations
55 Orchard Rd
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
845-480-2058
hobbs at electrooptical dot net
http://electrooptical.net
Nobody
>> Try Sourceforge instead.
>>
>> <http://sourceforge.net/projects/ghostscript/files/GPL%20Ghostscript/>
>>
>
> 135 megabytes, shazam! The bloat from version to version looks (almost)
> like the budget defizit :-)
That's the total for the directory, which includes the Win32 version,
Win64 version, MacOSX version, Linux version, source code (as both .tar.gz
and .tar.bz2) and some other stuff.
Joerg
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:54:44 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Joerg wrote:
>>> Gents,
>>>
>>> IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
>>> those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
>>> gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>>>
>>> No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
>>> valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
>>> and make it install?
>>>
>> Guys, figured it out: I had to erase and download two more times, then
>> it stuck. It installed alright. Now I can see the files but it's nearly
>> not as good as PDF. Did I already say that I never liked Postscript? :-)
>
> It won't display as nicely with the Ghostscript viewer as one has come
> to expect from pdf viewers. GSview is more of a preview app for page
> layout and such, and doesn't do the rendering tricks with sub-pixel
> anti-aliasing and gamma correction that pdf viewers pretty much all
> handle nowadays. It expects that the .ps file will be sent onwards to a
> high-resolution printer for final rendering.
>
Yeah, I know, PS is so yesterday. In fact it already was 20 years ago.
Back then I became so frustrated with it that I completely ditched it
and adopted HPGL. That is a much better rendering tool for CAD but
eventually fell from graces for whatever reason.
> But, a Ghostscript installation does come with the necessary tools to
> convert .ps to .pdf. There are probably wrappers that put ribbons and
> bows on this, but all you should need to do is to copy the .ps file to
> the directory in the GS install that has ps2pdf14.bat (probably the lib
> directory) and run it from the command line against your .ps file. The
> result should be a good looking .pdf file.
>
Thanks, I'll try that. Anything that gets me off of that dreaded PS
format is a good thing. Problem is, with this IC design I am going to
have a barrage of PS files coming at me over the next months. So I
better get some batch process going where I can send all that through a
wringer before I even look at them.
Looks like good old DOS batch file time again. Now that I am intimately
familiar with :-)
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Did you miss my comments about GhostView and GhostScript? Something
is amiss in how you're trying to install.
If your only issue is _receiving_ PS schematics, won't any of the PDF
rip-off's handle that? And generating PS is as trivial as installing
a printer driver, such as: Apple LaserWriter II NTX v51.8, then "Print
to File".
Jim Thompson
<excret...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:59:23 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>
>> Oh, and when I print to PDF I get a blank sheet. Great.
>
>
>gs(or in your case gswin32) -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -r600
>-dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -sOutputFile=whatever.pdf filename.ps
>
>Will generate a PDF from the PS.
>
>I prefer command line operation to GSView for anything other than just
>displaying.
>
>You can generate PS from PDF, split pages out of PDFs, generate bitmaps
>and all sorts. Take a look at the options in the "File-Convert" menu of
>GSView.
>
>I once added a bookmark tree and links to a PDF copy of the NASA Apollo 13
>Cortwright Report by splitting the PDF into individual PS pages, manually
>adding pdfmarks with a text editor, then re-distilling the PS pages into a
>single PDF. The original was scanned typescript, hence bitmaps, so it
>was, and is, huge. All done with ghostscript. No Acrobat distiller here.
>
>RTFM (HTML bundled with the ghostscript package) There are so many
>options, versatility is tremendous. It's a bit of a learning curve.
>
>Don't expect a binary distribution to have been compiled with all the
>optional devices and drivers. The one I use was compiled on this system,
>with the drivers that *I* wanted. It forms the core of the print system.
Trying to be Joerg-ean cheap can cost you more in hours diddling
around than in direct cost...
I bought the GSview 3.6 and AFPL Ghostscript 6.50 CD back in January
2001 for AUD 70.00. What was that back then... ~US$45 ??
Had to do it because I got a big Atmel contract and their
documentation was in large sheet PS.
Jim Thompson
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:33:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>Gents,
>>
>>IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
>>those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
>>gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>>
>>No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
>>valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
>>and make it install?
>
>Make sure you have the right versions. You also need GSView which
>"calls" Ghostscript... I have GSView v3.5 running on XP.
>
>IIRC, there is a specific order of installation required to make it
>work.
>
[snip]
I suddenly remembered the trick... you need to install a PostScript
printer driver FIRST.
Joerg
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:00:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:33:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Gents,
>>>
>>> IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
>>> those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
>>> gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>>>
>>> No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
>>> valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
>>> and make it install?
>> Make sure you have the right versions. You also need GSView which
>> "calls" Ghostscript... I have GSView v3.5 running on XP.
>>
>> IIRC, there is a specific order of installation required to make it
>> work.
>>
> [snip]
>
> I suddenly remembered the trick... you need to install a PostScript
> printer driver FIRST.
>
Well, it worked without. This whole Postscript business is something I
had hoped had gone the way of the dinosaurs. Unfortunately not
everywhere :-(
Joerg
It didn't matter, you can install Ghostscript first. In fact, that's how
it was explained. Worked after downloading several times.
> If your only issue is _receiving_ PS schematics, won't any of the PDF
> rip-off's handle that? And generating PS is as trivial as installing
> a printer driver, such as: Apple LaserWriter II NTX v51.8, then "Print
> to File".
I certainly won't generate PS files. That format is IMHO the pits.
Almost nothing can read it anymore these days. HPGL was so much better
for schematics.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Isn't HPGL device-specific? I certainly wouldn't distribute
schematics in that format. Can't be netlisted for one.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
Maybe you need rejuvenation...
https://www.buyirenew.com/Default.aspx?mid=818859 ;-)
Joerg
It wasn't. I could easily import that into MS-Word for example. That's
how I did all my module specs in the 90's. They didn't look much
different than today's except that the underlying schametics were
imported as HPGL instead of PNG and the images as bitmaps.
Netlist? It is not common to generated a netlist from any graphics or
printing format. That's done at the CAD level.
Joerg
Nah, only my chainsaw might need that. It got a good workout this
morning. I am surprised that the old Remington is still hanging on after
all those years. I sharpened the chain so often that it's a bit thinned
down but I think it'll do another winter.
Joerg
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:59:23 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>
>
>
> -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -sOutputFile=whatever.pdf filename.ps
>
> Will generate a PDF from the PS.
>
> I prefer command line operation to GSView for anything other than just
> displaying.
>
> You can generate PS from PDF, split pages out of PDFs, generate bitmaps
> and all sorts. Take a look at the options in the "File-Convert" menu of
> GSView.
>
> I once added a bookmark tree and links to a PDF copy of the NASA Apollo 13
> Cortwright Report by splitting the PDF into individual PS pages, manually
> adding pdfmarks with a text editor, then re-distilling the PS pages into a
> single PDF. The original was scanned typescript, hence bitmaps, so it
> was, and is, huge. All done with ghostscript. No Acrobat distiller here.
>
> RTFM (HTML bundled with the ghostscript package) There are so many
> options, versatility is tremendous. It's a bit of a learning curve.
>
> Don't expect a binary distribution to have been compiled with all the
> optional devices and drivers. The one I use was compiled on this system,
> with the drivers that *I* wanted. It forms the core of the print system.
>
Well, to be honest, I hope that when this job is complete by the end of
the year I can say good-bye to Postscript for good :-)
Although, I thought that 20 years ago and while it hasn't reared its
ugly head now it did.
Joerg
Well, I _have_ those.
> Had to do it because I got a big Atmel contract and their
> documentation was in large sheet PS.
>
I do the same thing. It's ok if SW costs some money, got plenty of
licenses here. But then I expect it to be reasonably priced _and_ work.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Obviously I design chips for a living... my CAD entry IS a schematic
capture program, that generates a layout-compatible netlist. That's
the ONLY way to ensure error-free correlation to layout tools.
We seem to be talking different things. For _documentation_ any
number of graphical formats will work... just depends on how
"hickey-fied" and cheap your documentation tools are ;-)
Being a professional I can "print" from my schematic capture tool
directly to just about any graphical format you'd like, PNG, GIF, BMP,
JPEG, TIFF and PDF.
But that capability came at great expense... US$69 ;-)
(My usual approach is to generate hierarchically navigable PDF's,
making it much easier for customers sitting in a presentation to
follow along thru a complex design.)
Jim Thompson
wrote:
I have a little battery-powered chain saw on an extension pole that I
use to trim my Mesquite trees. Good up to about 3" branches.
Joerg
That's why I was surprised you wondered about HPGL being used for
netlisting. It wouldn't make sense.
> We seem to be talking different things. For _documentation_ any
> number of graphical formats will work... just depends on how
> "hickey-fied" and cheap your documentation tools are ;-)
>
> Being a professional I can "print" from my schematic capture tool
> directly to just about any graphical format you'd like, PNG, GIF, BMP,
> JPEG, TIFF and PDF.
>
> But that capability came at great expense... US$69 ;-)
>
Same here, except that my CAD came with nearly all possible export
formats included. Plus tons of scripting options to make others.
> (My usual approach is to generate hierarchically navigable PDF's,
> making it much easier for customers sitting in a presentation to
> follow along thru a complex design.)
>
That's the big downside of the CAD I am using, no hierarchy. But I
haven't found a better one and no ten horses will drag me back to Orcad
until it reaches the robustness level of SDT. Or maybe I should have
said, if it ever reaches that again.
Spehro Pefhany
Took about a 2nd storey 3" hardwood branch down with the Fiskars saw
on the extension pole. Didn't take long (lubed it with white graphite
grease). D*mn raccoons were using it to get to the roof.
http://www.speff.com/Caught.jpg
Management has banned chain saws on the end of long poles as being way
too scary. ;-)
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Jim Thompson
wrote:
So why are you fretting over PostScript? Use a PS printer driver.
"Print" to file. Rename extension to .EPS... paste as your heart
desires.
>
>
>> (My usual approach is to generate hierarchically navigable PDF's,
>> making it much easier for customers sitting in a presentation to
>> follow along thru a complex design.)
>>
>
>That's the big downside of the CAD I am using, no hierarchy. But I
>haven't found a better one and no ten horses will drag me back to Orcad
>until it reaches the robustness level of SDT. Or maybe I should have
>said, if it ever reaches that again.
That's why I've stuck with classic PSpice Schematics (very nicely
hierarchical) all these years. OrCAD can't even be creative while
stealing from the best :-)
To make hierarchical PDF's requires Adobe Acrobat... I think... can
any of the copycat programs also do it?
Rich Webb
<To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>To make hierarchical PDF's requires Adobe Acrobat... I think... can
>any of the copycat programs also do it?
The full version of Tracker Software's PDF reader will allow one to
insert links into an existing PDF file.
Probably not as nice as having the schematic capture program
automagically create a PDF with up- and down-links in the drawing
package, but it's pretty quick to draw the link's bounding box,
right-click for properties, and then add the action.
Actually, if Joerg is still on the line, that might be a partial remedy
for his non-hierarchical schematic capture package (EAGLE?): Print all
of the schematic pages to a PDF document and then just add the necessary
links to move around in the hierarchy, as desired.
The free version of PDF-Xchange should allow trying out the add-link
feature, although IIRC it adds an evaluation watermark to the document.
Martin Riddle
"Fred Abse" <excret...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2010.08.28....@invalid.invalid...
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:59:23 -0700, Joerg wrote:
>
>> Oh, and when I print to PDF I get a blank sheet. Great.
>
>
> gs(or in your case gswin32) -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -sDEVICE=pdfwrite -r600
> -dCompatibilityLevel=1.4 -sOutputFile=whatever.pdf filename.ps
>
Ghostfriend hides all those commands in a easy interface.
I used it to try to figureout those commands for another project.
There are orientation commands that don't always work well.
Cheers
Grant
>On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:00:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:33:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Gents,
>>>
>>>IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
>>>those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
>>>gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>>>
>>>No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
>>>valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
>>>and make it install?
>>
>>Make sure you have the right versions. You also need GSView which
>>"calls" Ghostscript... I have GSView v3.5 running on XP.
>>
>>IIRC, there is a specific order of installation required to make it
>>work.
>>
>[snip]
>
>I suddenly remembered the trick... you need to install a PostScript
>printer driver FIRST.
Yes, and it's one of the apple 2 writer printer drivers, though the one
you mentioned upthread didn't look quite right, it was something like
that (could be the right one for this century :). Been a decade or more
since I needed PS, there's some nice stuff in there with the processing
commands.
Grant.
Joerg
Again, I don't need to generate or even print PS. I will receive PS
files from an IC design house and must review the schematics, make
changes, maybe mark them up.
I would never use PS internally here. Even if one of the printers might
understand it pretty much none of my office programs does.
>>
>>> (My usual approach is to generate hierarchically navigable PDF's,
>>> making it much easier for customers sitting in a presentation to
>>> follow along thru a complex design.)
>>>
>> That's the big downside of the CAD I am using, no hierarchy. But I
>> haven't found a better one and no ten horses will drag me back to Orcad
>> until it reaches the robustness level of SDT. Or maybe I should have
>> said, if it ever reaches that again.
>
> That's why I've stuck with classic PSpice Schematics (very nicely
> hierarchical) all these years. OrCAD can't even be creative while
> stealing from the best :-)
>
But probably can't be purchased sans PSpice? Do they still offer that
schematic frontend or was it obsoleted?
> To make hierarchical PDF's requires Adobe Acrobat... I think... can
> any of the copycat programs also do it?
>
I could do that with an office program, that's no problem. The problem
for me is that the CAD doesn't do hierarchy so it's unable to manage
nets and ports in a layered structure.
Joerg
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 18:18:00 -0700, Jim Thompson
> <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>> To make hierarchical PDF's requires Adobe Acrobat... I think... can
>> any of the copycat programs also do it?
>
> The full version of Tracker Software's PDF reader will allow one to
> insert links into an existing PDF file.
>
> Probably not as nice as having the schematic capture program
> automagically create a PDF with up- and down-links in the drawing
> package, but it's pretty quick to draw the link's bounding box,
> right-click for properties, and then add the action.
>
> Actually, if Joerg is still on the line, that might be a partial remedy
> for his non-hierarchical schematic capture package (EAGLE?): Print all
> of the schematic pages to a PDF document and then just add the necessary
> links to move around in the hierarchy, as desired.
>
That's actually what I am doing except I go in with the PNG format, then
to PDF when all done :-)
> The free version of PDF-Xchange should allow trying out the add-link
> feature, although IIRC it adds an evaluation watermark to the document.
>
It doesn't have to be free, just reasonable.
Frank Buss
> Again, I don't need to generate or even print PS. I will receive PS
> files from an IC design house and must review the schematics, make
> changes, maybe mark them up.
>
> I would never use PS internally here. Even if one of the printers might
> understand it pretty much none of my office programs does.
Low-tech solution: You could print it (a copy /b to lpt1: from DOS prompt
should work, if you have enabled DOS redirection in the printer driver),
then add your marks, scan it back to PDF (I have a cheap SnapScan scanner,
where you can scan it to PDF with one button click) and send back the
scanned documents.
Or you could buy Adobe Acrobat: It can convert PS files to PDF files or
even Word Document (with some losses), with batch converter included (at
least in my version. It is called Acrobat Distiller. Check, if it is part
of your version, if you buy it). And you can edit PDF files with it: E.g.
in my German version there is a tool called "Schreibmaschine" (I wonder if
they did use some automatic translator programs), with which I can enter
text at arbitrary positions and a "Bleistift-Werkzeug": You can guess what
it does, but the name is wrong, actually it is a "Buntstift" :-) really
nice in combination with my Wacom graphics tablet.
--
Frank Buss, http://www.frank-buss.de
piano and more: http://www.youtube.com/user/frankbuss
Jim Thompson
>On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 11:50:37 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 18:00:03 -0700, Jim Thompson
>><To-Email-Use-Th...@On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 27 Aug 2010 17:33:40 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Gents,
>>>>
>>>>IC designers still seem to live in the Postscript world ... can't read
>>>>those dreaded files. Client said to install Ghostscript. So I downloaded
>>>>gs871w32.exe from U of Wisconsin.
>>>>
>>>>No matter what I do, this here computation machine bucks and says "not a
>>>>valid Win32 application". Running XP. What gives? How can I dodge this
>>>>and make it install?
>>>
>>>Make sure you have the right versions. You also need GSView which
>>>"calls" Ghostscript... I have GSView v3.5 running on XP.
>>>
>>>IIRC, there is a specific order of installation required to make it
>>>work.
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>I suddenly remembered the trick... you need to install a PostScript
>>printer driver FIRST.
Actually, IIRC, the install gripes for you to install PS driver first,
does it not?
>
>Yes, and it's one of the apple 2 writer printer drivers, though the one
>you mentioned upthread didn't look quite right, it was something like
>that (could be the right one for this century :). Been a decade or more
>since I needed PS, there's some nice stuff in there with the processing
>commands.
>
>Grant.
Yep, Mine WAS installed _last_century_ :-) But it is still working.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
[snip]
>
>Again, I don't need to generate or even print PS. I will receive PS
>files from an IC design house and must review the schematics,
Ghostscript will do that
>make
>changes, maybe mark them up.
As for changes and "mark-up", how do you plan to do that?
>
>I would never use PS internally here. Even if one of the printers might
>understand it pretty much none of my office programs does.
>
>>>
>>>> (My usual approach is to generate hierarchically navigable PDF's,
>>>> making it much easier for customers sitting in a presentation to
>>>> follow along thru a complex design.)
>>>>
>>> That's the big downside of the CAD I am using, no hierarchy. But I
>>> haven't found a better one and no ten horses will drag me back to Orcad
>>> until it reaches the robustness level of SDT. Or maybe I should have
>>> said, if it ever reaches that again.
>>
>> That's why I've stuck with classic PSpice Schematics (very nicely
>> hierarchical) all these years. OrCAD can't even be creative while
>> stealing from the best :-)
Classic PSpice Schematics should be available at several websites, and
_doesn't_ require a license.
The main pain in bringing it up would be sorting out what symbol
libraries you wish to use.
>>
>
>But probably can't be purchased sans PSpice? Do they still offer that
>schematic frontend or was it obsoleted?
>
>
>> To make hierarchical PDF's requires Adobe Acrobat... I think... can
>> any of the copycat programs also do it?
>>
>
>I could do that with an office program, that's no problem. The problem
>for me is that the CAD doesn't do hierarchy so it's unable to manage
>nets and ports in a layered structure.
Jim Thompson
I just remembered (and tested) another way... cheap graphics programs
like Paint Shop pro can read .PS files, then "Save As" the format of
your choice.
Marte Schwarz
>>> Looks like good old DOS batch file time again. Now that I am intimately
>>> familiar with :-)
> I certainly won't generate PS files. That format is IMHO the pits.
> Almost nothing can read it anymore these days. HPGL was so much better
> for schematics.
Never! PS is a great and powerfol tool in case someone understands to
manipulate it. Many years ago, when windows where built with wood and
glas and had definitely no elecrtonic components, I used ghostscript to
pimp up my deskjet that had only courier implemented ;-) Generating
Postscript files and printing them via gs was fine since DOS times. When
I got a book about postscript I enjoyed this more and more.
Having a ps-file and a ASCII-editor I have allways a toolchain to make
what I want.
I got my schematic for my master thesis "Printed with postscript. But I
wanted to extract some details described in the text: Postscript was my
friend. Some ugly settings in the CAD-program, never mind, I corrected
this in PS-files and had nice looking printouts... I never want to miss
this useful tool.
Even the trials with spiral antennas. It took me only half an hour to
have al repro-film for making the pcbs for ist. A few collegues tried to
construct these double spirals with several CAD-tools... hours later
they capitulated...
But I agree, a more easy to use frontend with a good structured help
system would be nice...
Marte
Marte Schwarz
> Again, I don't need to generate or even print PS. I will receive PS
> files from an IC design house and must review the schematics, make
> changes, maybe mark them up.
>
> I would never use PS internally here. Even if one of the printers might
> understand it pretty much none of my office programs does.
then give inkscape and/or scribus a chance. I use them actually to
manipulate my postscript-files. Inkscape imports ps pretty good and
scribus I know better to manipulate. May be inkscape would be good
enough for you.
Marte
Jim Thompson
Hi Marte, Right now, to overlay multiple-case-study PSpice simulation
results I concatenate all the files plus add a header and footer that
makes it into a single entity. Crude and blurry at times. Takes
laborious final clean-up in Acrobat :-(
Can inkscape and/or scribus do this?
In the past (DOS days) I ran all kinds of batch files to annotate PS
schematics and break big ones into "tiles" that could be taped
together.
Marte Schwarz
> Right now, to overlay multiple-case-study PSpice simulation
> results I concatenate all the files plus add a header and footer that
> makes it into a single entity. Crude and blurry at times. Takes
> laborious final clean-up in Acrobat :-(
>
> Can inkscape and/or scribus do this?
I guess this should be good with inkscape. Just import the psdocs and
give each of them his own layer. Then you can do what you want with them.
Give it a try.
www.inkscape.org
www.scribus.net
both are free
Marte
Frank Buss
> I guess this should be good with inkscape. Just import the psdocs and
> give each of them his own layer. Then you can do what you want with them.
> Give it a try.
>
> www.inkscape.org
> www.scribus.net
>
> both are free
Inkscape is nice for creating drawings, but I have just tried the latest
0.48 version with a random PS file from my documents directory (it was this
one: http://www.math.uic.edu/~jbaldwin/pub/cabs7.ps ) and it failed to
import it. Maybe I missed something? Neither "File open", nor "Import"
works. Ghostscript and Acrobat Distiller don't have problems with it.
BTW: Ghostscript and GSview works nice on my old XP machine and on my
current Vista maschine. It can display postscript documents and I can
export it as PDF.
On my old XP machine I have even installed the free Redmon printer driver,
which creates a virtual printer, which uses Ghostscript to allow creating
PDF files from any program which can print data. Of course, I don't need it
anymore, because such a virtual printer is part of Adobe Acrobat.
But I like postscript, because it is easy to write programs, which outputs
postscript files, e.g. as I have used for my recent research about Koch
Curves:
http://www.frank-buss.de/kochkurve/index.html
And you can really write nice programs within postscript, if you don't have
to do other things :-)
Joerg
> Joerg wrote:
>
>> Again, I don't need to generate or even print PS. I will receive PS
>> files from an IC design house and must review the schematics, make
>> changes, maybe mark them up.
>>
>> I would never use PS internally here. Even if one of the printers might
>> understand it pretty much none of my office programs does.
>
> Low-tech solution: You could print it (a copy /b to lpt1: from DOS prompt
> should work, if you have enabled DOS redirection in the printer driver),
> then add your marks, scan it back to PDF (I have a cheap SnapScan scanner,
> where you can scan it to PDF with one button click) and send back the
> scanned documents.
>
That would indeed be the low-tech version :-)
I have occasionally done such things in the past but trying to avoid it
if possible. Although, when I have to do mark-ups your idea is probably
a good one because it can still be faster than trying to do the mark-up
in some sort of program. Nothing beats the speed of a pencil.
> Or you could buy Adobe Acrobat: It can convert PS files to PDF files or
> even Word Document (with some losses), with batch converter included (at
> least in my version. It is called Acrobat Distiller. Check, if it is part
> of your version, if you buy it). And you can edit PDF files with it: E.g.
> in my German version there is a tool called "Schreibmaschine" (I wonder if
> they did use some automatic translator programs), with which I can enter
> text at arbitrary positions and a "Bleistift-Werkzeug": You can guess what
> it does, but the name is wrong, actually it is a "Buntstift" :-) really
> nice in combination with my Wacom graphics tablet.
>
After the dismal crash record of Acrobat over here I really don't want
to buy any software from them.
Joerg
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:38:49 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> Again, I don't need to generate or even print PS. I will receive PS
>> files from an IC design house and must review the schematics,
>
> Ghostscript will do that
>
>> make
>> changes, maybe mark them up.
>
> As for changes and "mark-up", how do you plan to do that?
>
With more compatible formats it's easy. The simplest way is this: Load
into MS-Paint, make your suggestions right in there in a different
color, store, attach to email, done.
>> I would never use PS internally here. Even if one of the printers might
>> understand it pretty much none of my office programs does.
>>
>>>>> (My usual approach is to generate hierarchically navigable PDF's,
>>>>> making it much easier for customers sitting in a presentation to
>>>>> follow along thru a complex design.)
>>>>>
>>>> That's the big downside of the CAD I am using, no hierarchy. But I
>>>> haven't found a better one and no ten horses will drag me back to Orcad
>>>> until it reaches the robustness level of SDT. Or maybe I should have
>>>> said, if it ever reaches that again.
>>> That's why I've stuck with classic PSpice Schematics (very nicely
>>> hierarchical) all these years. OrCAD can't even be creative while
>>> stealing from the best :-)
>
> Classic PSpice Schematics should be available at several websites, and
> _doesn't_ require a license.
>
Interesting, even Cadence offers it:
http://www.cadence.com/products/orcad/pages/downloads.aspx
This doesn't require one to have a current Orcad license? Mine is sorta
ancient.
> The main pain in bringing it up would be sorting out what symbol
> libraries you wish to use.
>
I wouldn't have any trouble with that. It's just that if I change CAD
systems again I'd like this to be the last time because re-creating all
the library parts is tedious. Being an analog guy I use a lot of
unorthodox stuff.
[...]
Joerg
Aha! Thanks. Now that would be an option because I can also use that for
marking schematics.
Joerg
> Marte Schwarz wrote:
>
>> I guess this should be good with inkscape. Just import the psdocs and
>> give each of them his own layer. Then you can do what you want with them.
>> Give it a try.
>>
>> www.inkscape.org
>> www.scribus.net
>>
>> both are free
>
> Inkscape is nice for creating drawings, but I have just tried the latest
> 0.48 version with a random PS file from my documents directory (it was this
> one: http://www.math.uic.edu/~jbaldwin/pub/cabs7.ps ) and it failed to
> import it. Maybe I missed something? Neither "File open", nor "Import"
> works. Ghostscript and Acrobat Distiller don't have problems with it.
>
Whoops ...
Jim said Paint Shop Pro import nicely. Maybe I should just buy that. Got
to read up on it first, see if annotating inside schematics would work.
I don't care how it then stores it all because I'd send it to PDF anyhow
once I have reviewed a schematic.
Jim, do you remember which version you tested this on? X2, X2-Ultimate
or XI? There are so many versions available, quite confusing.
> BTW: Ghostscript and GSview works nice on my old XP machine and on my
> current Vista maschine. It can display postscript documents and I can
> export it as PDF.
>
> On my old XP machine I have even installed the free Redmon printer driver,
> which creates a virtual printer, which uses Ghostscript to allow creating
> PDF files from any program which can print data. Of course, I don't need it
> anymore, because such a virtual printer is part of Adobe Acrobat.
>
That I do with PDF-Creator.
> But I like postscript, because it is easy to write programs, which outputs
> postscript files, e.g. as I have used for my recent research about Koch
> Curves:
>
> http://www.frank-buss.de/kochkurve/index.html
>
> And you can really write nice programs within postscript, if you don't have
> to do other things :-)
>
"Not having to do other things" rapidly changes after getting married :-)
Jim Thompson
Thanks, Marte!
Jim Thompson
wrote:
If you'd toss all those *PHUTS* lurking in your PC you wouldn't have
any troubles. I've been using Acrobat for YEARS, with problems so
rare I can't remember when I last had a problem.
I suspect your constant use of "cheap kid stuff" has riddled your
machine with DLL conflicts.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Same here. I literally have hundreds of custom symbols.
Joerg
> Hi Jörg,
>>>> Looks like good old DOS batch file time again. Now that I am intimately
>>>> familiar with :-)
>
>> I certainly won't generate PS files. That format is IMHO the pits.
>> Almost nothing can read it anymore these days. HPGL was so much better
>> for schematics.
>
> Never! PS is a great and powerfol tool in case someone understands to
> manipulate it. Many years ago, when windows where built with wood and
> glas and had definitely no elecrtonic components, I used ghostscript to
The old HP DeskJet could also be pimped with some sort of generic driver
that then read in fonts as templates. It's too long ago, can't remember,
but I bought this helper disk around 1990 in a computer store in
Seattle, very cheap. I think you could even design your own fonts with
it if you absolutely had to have it print in Klingon or whatever.
> ... Generating
> Postscript files and printing them via gs was fine since DOS times. When
> I got a book about postscript I enjoyed this more and more.
> Having a ps-file and a ASCII-editor I have allways a toolchain to make
> what I want.
> I got my schematic for my master thesis "Printed with postscript. But I
> wanted to extract some details described in the text: Postscript was my
> friend. Some ugly settings in the CAD-program, never mind, I corrected
> this in PS-files and had nice looking printouts... I never want to miss
> this useful tool.
> Even the trials with spiral antennas. It took me only half an hour to
> have al repro-film for making the pcbs for ist. A few collegues tried to
> construct these double spirals with several CAD-tools... hours later
> they capitulated...
>
HPGL is actually very powerful as well because it is a vector language.
The difference was that it was much more compatible. MS-Word 5.0 for DOS
which I used for all my engineering documents could import it in a snap
(but not Postscript). I gave clients module specs with chunks of
schematics in there, in the shape of figures, with captions, nice text
flow-around and all. So I could explain how this I/Q stage over here
works, or the phase shifter over there. Often I received only one
question and it wasn't technical: "How did you get that in there?"
HPGL had just one quirk or, rather, some software did. And it was easy
to fix: Some software wanted the "pen down" command in there, other
software didn't.
> But I agree, a more easy to use frontend with a good structured help
> system would be nice...
>
It would be very simple if many of the popular tools could at least
import it. But PS must have fallen from grace, almost none do. However,
Jim said Paint Shop does and that may be the ticket here because I am
sure it has a more professional frontend than what I've got now.
Joerg
Then how come _all_ other software runs flawlessly and client engineers
tell me the same thing?
For example, the CAD hasn't crashed since I bought it around five years
ago. Not once. Orcad Windows versions on the other hand ... well,
there's a reason I don't have that.
Joerg
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:21:22 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Jim Thompson wrote:
[Changing CAD systems]
>>
>>> The main pain in bringing it up would be sorting out what symbol
>>> libraries you wish to use.
>>>
>> I wouldn't have any trouble with that. It's just that if I change CAD
>> systems again I'd like this to be the last time because re-creating all
>> the library parts is tedious. Being an analog guy I use a lot of
>> unorthodox stuff.
>>
>> [...]
>
> Same here. I literally have hundreds of custom symbols.
>
Happened: "Hey, Joerg, that's a pretty vase you've drawn there on your
screen" ... "Ahm, that's not a vase, it's a fiber-optics part"
Spehro Pefhany
Sure, but is it good to make every decision based on price?
;-)
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Joerg
Why should it be? I pay good money for good stuff. But only if it is the
good stuff and if it is really needed. In this case the lower cost CAD
has turned out to behave much more robust than the more expensive CAD
and for me that was a nobrainer, really :-)
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Frank Buss wrote:
>> Marte Schwarz wrote:
>>
>>> I guess this should be good with inkscape. Just import the psdocs and
>>> give each of them his own layer. Then you can do what you want with them.
>>> Give it a try.
>>>
>>> www.inkscape.org
>>> www.scribus.net
>>>
>>> both are free
>>
>> Inkscape is nice for creating drawings, but I have just tried the latest
>> 0.48 version with a random PS file from my documents directory (it was this
>> one: http://www.math.uic.edu/~jbaldwin/pub/cabs7.ps ) and it failed to
>> import it. Maybe I missed something? Neither "File open", nor "Import"
>> works. Ghostscript and Acrobat Distiller don't have problems with it.
>>
>
>Whoops ...
>
>Jim said Paint Shop Pro import nicely. Maybe I should just buy that. Got
>to read up on it first, see if annotating inside schematics would work.
>I don't care how it then stores it all because I'd send it to PDF anyhow
>once I have reviewed a schematic.
>
>Jim, do you remember which version you tested this on? X2, X2-Ultimate
>or XI? There are so many versions available, quite confusing.
Like you I have mostly old reliable stuff... Paint Shop pro v8.10,
running on XP pro.
>
>
>> BTW: Ghostscript and GSview works nice on my old XP machine and on my
>> current Vista maschine. It can display postscript documents and I can
>> export it as PDF.
>>
>> On my old XP machine I have even installed the free Redmon printer driver,
>> which creates a virtual printer, which uses Ghostscript to allow creating
>> PDF files from any program which can print data. Of course, I don't need it
>> anymore, because such a virtual printer is part of Adobe Acrobat.
>>
>
>That I do with PDF-Creator.
>
>
>> But I like postscript, because it is easy to write programs, which outputs
>> postscript files, e.g. as I have used for my recent research about Koch
>> Curves:
>>
>> http://www.frank-buss.de/kochkurve/index.html
>>
>> And you can really write nice programs within postscript, if you don't have
>> to do other things :-)
>>
>
>"Not having to do other things" rapidly changes after getting married :-)
Poor baby! Try adding 4 kids and 8 grand kids ;-) I'd need another
70 years to investigate all the things I'd like to know.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
[snip]
>
>It would be very simple if many of the popular tools could at least
>import it. But PS must have fallen from grace, almost none do. However,
>Jim said Paint Shop does and that may be the ticket here because I am
>sure it has a more professional frontend than what I've got now.
PS hasn't fallen from grace... it's very much alive in the fancy
graphical and printing worlds.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:21:22 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>[Changing CAD systems]
>
>>>
>>>> The main pain in bringing it up would be sorting out what symbol
>>>> libraries you wish to use.
>>>>
>>> I wouldn't have any trouble with that. It's just that if I change CAD
>>> systems again I'd like this to be the last time because re-creating all
>>> the library parts is tedious. Being an analog guy I use a lot of
>>> unorthodox stuff.
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Same here. I literally have hundreds of custom symbols.
>>
>
>Happened: "Hey, Joerg, that's a pretty vase you've drawn there on your
>screen" ... "Ahm, that's not a vase, it's a fiber-optics part"
Do you have a symbol for "phut"?
Joerg
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:48:39 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:21:22 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> [Changing CAD systems]
>>>
>>>>>> The main pain in bringing it up would be sorting out what symbol
>>>>>> libraries you wish to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't have any trouble with that. It's just that if I change CAD
>>>>> systems again I'd like this to be the last time because re-creating all
>>>>> the library parts is tedious. Being an analog guy I use a lot of
>>>>> unorthodox stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Same here. I literally have hundreds of custom symbols.
>>>>
>>> Happened: "Hey, Joerg, that's a pretty vase you've drawn there on your
>>> screen" ... "Ahm, that's not a vase, it's a fiber-optics part"
>>
>> Do you have a symbol for "phut"?
>
>
>Here ya go :-)
>
>http://www.areopagit.com/images/09021739.png
Nice, but it really should be a TO-3 or at least a TO-220 in the bottom left
corner. ;-)
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:48:39 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:21:22 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> [Changing CAD systems]
>>>
>>>>>> The main pain in bringing it up would be sorting out what symbol
>>>>>> libraries you wish to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't have any trouble with that. It's just that if I change CAD
>>>>> systems again I'd like this to be the last time because re-creating all
>>>>> the library parts is tedious. Being an analog guy I use a lot of
>>>>> unorthodox stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Same here. I literally have hundreds of custom symbols.
>>>>
>>> Happened: "Hey, Joerg, that's a pretty vase you've drawn there on your
>>> screen" ... "Ahm, that's not a vase, it's a fiber-optics part"
>>
>> Do you have a symbol for "phut"?
>
>
>Here ya go :-)
>
>http://www.areopagit.com/images/09021739.png
Included on every one of Joerg's schematics :-)
Joel Koltner
news:8dr8s5...@mid.individual.net...
> It's the pits, IMHO. Renders lettering poorly, overwrites when the font
> size is wrongly interpreted.
This is very unlikely to be a problem with PostScript itself: It's is probably
due to not having the actual fonts that the document calls for -- many popular
fonts used with PostScript files were copyrighted by Adobe, so while the free
PostScript interpreters such as GhostScript do come packaged with some of
their own (freely distributable) fonts, sometimes the quality isn't as good or
a substitution for an unavailable font is made which isn't very good... and
you end up with poor lettering.
You can purchase a copy of the Adobe fonts to get things to look better... or
of course purchase the full version of Acrobat, which comes with many of them.
Some early PostScript-compatible (i.e., not licensed from Adobe) printers had
this same problem, but they at least had the income stream of selling a
product to pay for folks to make better and better fonts, whereas it's all
volunteer work on GhostScript.
---Joel
Joerg
Ok, then I'll have to dig through the feature set of newer versions that
I can buy nowadays, to make sure they didn't drop PS-support like so
many other programs.
Happens with other formats as well. For example, I was mighty
disappointed when Microsoft ditched HPGL support for Word.
[...]
Marte Schwarz
>> I guess this should be good with inkscape. Just import the psdocs and
>> give each of them his own layer. Then you can do what you want with them.
>> Give it a try.
>>
>> www.inkscape.org
>> www.scribus.net
>>
>> both are free
>
> Inkscape is nice for creating drawings, but I have just tried the latest
> 0.48 version with a random PS file from my documents directory (it was this
> one: http://www.math.uic.edu/~jbaldwin/pub/cabs7.ps ) and it failed to
> import it. Maybe I missed something? Neither "File open", nor "Import"
> works. Ghostscript and Acrobat Distiller don't have problems with it.
You're right. I looked in my latest imported files: I first converted my
ps-files with ghostscript to pdf and then imported these with incscape
(then saved as svg and opened them in scribus to manipulate. Nice
batch-jobs ;-)
> And you can really write nice programs within postscript, if you don't have
> to do other things :-)
It saved a lot of times for me.
Marte
Joerg
I think I'll just try to find a method of importing the schematics into
some common program, Paint Shop or something else, then ditch all the
lettering. It's just stuff like the company name that gets messed up.
The important parts of the legend and the schematic come through,
although somewhat blurry.
HPGL was sooo much nicer. Never blurred, no font issues, it just worked.
Grant
>k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:48:39 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:21:22 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jim Thompson wrote:
>>> [Changing CAD systems]
>>>
>>>>>> The main pain in bringing it up would be sorting out what symbol
>>>>>> libraries you wish to use.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I wouldn't have any trouble with that. It's just that if I change CAD
>>>>> systems again I'd like this to be the last time because re-creating all
>>>>> the library parts is tedious. Being an analog guy I use a lot of
>>>>> unorthodox stuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>> Same here. I literally have hundreds of custom symbols.
>>>>
>>> Happened: "Hey, Joerg, that's a pretty vase you've drawn there on your
>>> screen" ... "Ahm, that's not a vase, it's a fiber-optics part"
>>
>> Do you have a symbol for "phut"?
>
>
>Here ya go :-)
>
>http://www.areopagit.com/images/09021739.png
Ask a silly question ;)
Jim Thompson
Which version of Inkscape should be downloaded for Win2K or XP? The
choices are _very_ confusing, plus all that Eunuchs-speak is scary ;-)
Jim Thompson
wrote:
You're not likely to have unusual fonts on a schematic but, if you do,
take note of the font name... you can probably download it from
somewhere.
PSP Pro is almost as powerful as Corel Draw at a fraction of the
price. And it's easy to learn as long as you don't try fixing
photos... that can get pretty intense :-0
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Jim Thompson wrote:
[snip]
Aaaargh! OrCAD ALERT! OrCAD ALERT! OrCAD ALERT! OrCAD ALERT!
Looks like Corel bought out JASC.
Today's the last day of a sale... BUT! Amazon has it cheaper :-)
Joerg
Well, that would be a nice upside. Making the photo you took of that new
prototype look better than it really is. I could also replace this one
palm tree that has a dying branch and always ends up in the lab pics,
put in a new palm tree from some vacation paradise, or the one from the
front yard :-)
Joerg
My first visit is always to Purplus, they tend to have a version or two
back at hard to beat prices:
http://www.purplus.net/search/search.php?catalog=purplus&query=Paint+Shop+Pro&x=0&y=0
No need to always buy the latest because often that ain't the greatest.
Like MS-Works where they seem to have broken it after version 6.0. It's
weird when you get some software with a PC and then go out and buy an
older version so that it becomes more reliable.
Spehro Pefhany
Adobe Illustrator will almost always open Postscript files, and allow
you to edit them (one page at a time) with neglible hassles. But it
does cost money and does require a reasonably modern computer to run
fast. The underlying model in Illustrator is basically the same as
Postscript (eg. stroked and filled outlines, Bezier curves etc.)
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Amazon appears cheaper on X3... by quite a lot.
Bill Sloman
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:31:56 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >Frank Buss wrote:
> >> Marte Schwarz wrote:
>
> >>> I guess this should be good with inkscape. Just import the psdocs and
> >>> give each of them his own layer. Then you can do what you want with them.
> >>> Give it a try.
>
> >>>www.inkscape.org
> >>>www.scribus.net
>
> >>> both are free
>
> >> Inkscape is nice for creating drawings, but I have just tried the latest
> >> 0.48 version with a random PS file from my documents directory (it was this
And about 4900 years to investigate the things he ought to know.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Michael A. Terrell
"k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:48:39 -0700, Joerg <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> ?? wrote:
> ??
> ??? Jim Thompson wrote:
> ?
> ?[Changing CAD systems]
> ?
> ???
> ???? The main pain in bringing it up would be sorting out what symbol
> ???? libraries you wish to use.
> ????
> ??? I wouldn't have any trouble with that. It's just that if I change CAD
> ??? systems again I'd like this to be the last time because re-creating all
> ??? the library parts is tedious. Being an analog guy I use a lot of
> ??? unorthodox stuff.
> ???
> ??? [...]
> ??
> ?? Same here. I literally have hundreds of custom symbols.
> ??
> ?
> ?Happened: "Hey, Joerg, that's a pretty vase you've drawn there on your
> ?screen" ... "Ahm, that's not a vase, it's a fiber-optics part"
>
> Do you have a symbol for "phut"?
He wore that one out, long ago!
--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.
Michael A. Terrell
Joerg wrote:
>
> The old HP DeskJet could also be pimped with some sort of generic driver
> that then read in fonts as templates. It's too long ago, can't remember,
> but I bought this helper disk around 1990 in a computer store in
> Seattle, very cheap. I think you could even design your own fonts with
> it if you absolutely had to have it print in Klingon or whatever.
Why bother? Here are over 1200 fonts:
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:44:16 -0700, Joerg ?inv...@invalid.invalid?
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
> ?
> ?It would be very simple if many of the popular tools could at least
> ?import it. But PS must have fallen from grace, almost none do. However,
> ?Jim said Paint Shop does and that may be the ticket here because I am
> ?sure it has a more professional frontend than what I've got now.
>
> PS hasn't fallen from grace... it's very much alive in the fancy
> graphical and printing worlds.
Jeorge just doesn't want to take the time to lern how to use it.
Marte Schwarz
> HPGL is actually very powerful as well because it is a vector language.
;-) Postscript may use vectors but much more. To compare Postscript with
HPGL is just to compare LaTeX (or ma be Word2007 ;-) vs. edlin.
Try to use different line-width. With HPGL it's really a crap. HPGL was
designed to use pen-plotters. That was a really good alternative when
color-printers where not available. Bit since most ink-printers have
photo capabilities and are "cheap" available just until A0-size pen
plotters are almost dead ans so HPGL too.
> The difference was that it was much more compatible. MS-Word 5.0 for DOS
> which I used for all my engineering documents could import it in a snap
> (but not Postscript).
Shure word 5.0 does, I used it very often. But only if you used a
postscript-output device like ghostscript or a PS-printer.
>> But I agree, a more easy to use frontend with a good structured help
>> system would be nice...
> It would be very simple if many of the popular tools could at least
> import it. But PS must have fallen from grace, almost none do. However,
> Jim said Paint Shop does and that may be the ticket here because I am
> sure it has a more professional frontend than what I've got now.
This is very easy to understand. PS is not only a printerformat like PCL
or HPGL. With postscript you can really program complex things that you
can't just import to a simple sheet of paper. This is teh rason, why
most programs imports PDF. But having Ghostscript the way is very easy,
just converting the PS-Files to PDF and import them ;-) This was so easy
done, that I forgot its need when I told you about inkscape and scribus.
Bu I remember, your windoof didn't want to install ghostscript but you
managed it now. So you don't have the problem now and therefore you are
now able to do your job. Convert your PS-files to PDF and import them to
inkscape or just use pdsXchange. Even with the free Viewer, you can
insert comments, markups, texts...
Marte
dagmarg...@yahoo.com
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 14:13:58 -0700, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Jim Thompson wrote:
> >> (My usual approach is to generate hierarchically navigable PDF's,
> >> making it much easier for customers sitting in a presentation to
> >> follow along thru a complex design.)
>
> >That's the big downside of the CAD I am using, no hierarchy. But I
> >haven't found a better one and no ten horses will drag me back to Orcad
> >until it reaches the robustness level of SDT. Or maybe I should have
> >said, if it ever reaches that again.
>
> That's why I've stuck with classic PSpice Schematics (very nicely
> hierarchical) all these years. OrCAD can't even be creative while
> stealing from the best :-)
>
> To make hierarchical PDF's requires Adobe Acrobat... I think... can
> any of the copycat programs also do it?
Jim,
Cadence offers a slew of old versions of PSpice Schematic (with
rapidly escalating bloat). Anything that recommends one over the
other?
Joerg
Yes, but after years of crashing Acrobat software I don't want it :-)
Joerg
But not sold via Amazon, comes from some other vendors. Purplus isn't
always the best deal for new versions but they often carry older ones
and those can be the real bargain. Got a mech CAD there for ten bucks,
similar reason, to be able to read in and mark up AutoCad files. When I
installed it I found out it even has 3D capability. Woohoo!
Joerg
> Hi Jörg,
>
>> HPGL is actually very powerful as well because it is a vector language.
>
> ;-) Postscript may use vectors but much more. To compare Postscript with
> HPGL is just to compare LaTeX (or ma be Word2007 ;-) vs. edlin.
>
Well, that may be so but for me only the results count. Right now
nothing over here (other than GhostScript) will read in PS and
Ghostcscript messes up some fonts. Plus the rendering is a wee bit
fuzzy. HPGL in the 90's did just one thing: It worked. Always. Crisp and
clear schematics on the screen and in print, never any font issues (it
doesn't use any), and most of all it was so compatible that I could send
my schematic to just about anyone and they'd be able to read and print them.
My sister sometimes tried to convince me that LaTex is better. But why?
The *.doc format does everything I need, it's simple, no learning curve.
> Try to use different line-width. With HPGL it's really a crap. HPGL was
> designed to use pen-plotters. That was a really good alternative when
> color-printers where not available. Bit since most ink-printers have
> photo capabilities and are "cheap" available just until A0-size pen
> plotters are almost dead ans so HPGL too.
>
I used HPGL only for file storage and import into the word processor.
That worked very well, until Microsoft dropped HPGL import support :-(
Ok, by that time formats such as PNG had come out and those work very
well, too.
>> The difference was that it was much more compatible. MS-Word 5.0 for DOS
>> which I used for all my engineering documents could import it in a snap
>> (but not Postscript).
>
> Shure word 5.0 does, I used it very often. But only if you used a
> postscript-output device like ghostscript or a PS-printer.
>
Well, that's just the trick, with HPGL you didn't have to install
anything. It just worked.
>>> But I agree, a more easy to use frontend with a good structured help
>>> system would be nice...
>> It would be very simple if many of the popular tools could at least
>> import it. But PS must have fallen from grace, almost none do. However,
>> Jim said Paint Shop does and that may be the ticket here because I am
>> sure it has a more professional frontend than what I've got now.
>
> This is very easy to understand. PS is not only a printerformat like PCL
> or HPGL. With postscript you can really program complex things that you
> can't just import to a simple sheet of paper. This is teh rason, why
> most programs imports PDF. But having Ghostscript the way is very easy,
> just converting the PS-Files to PDF and import them ;-) This was so easy
> done, that I forgot its need when I told you about inkscape and scribus.
> Bu I remember, your windoof didn't want to install ghostscript but you
> managed it now. So you don't have the problem now and therefore you are
> now able to do your job. Convert your PS-files to PDF and import them to
> inkscape or just use pdsXchange. Even with the free Viewer, you can
> insert comments, markups, texts...
>
Yes, I might just go that route. Set up some batch file that whenever a
slew of PS pages comes in it translates all to PDF. PDF viewers don't
let you insert comment, usually. But I can convert to a more practical
format such as PNG, then it's easy.
Joerg
> Jim Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 13:44:16 -0700, Joerg ?inv...@invalid.invalid?
>> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> ?
>> ?It would be very simple if many of the popular tools could at least
>> ?import it. But PS must have fallen from grace, almost none do. However,
>> ?Jim said Paint Shop does and that may be the ticket here because I am
>> ?sure it has a more professional frontend than what I've got now.
>>
>> PS hasn't fallen from grace... it's very much alive in the fancy
>> graphical and printing worlds.
>
>
> Jeorge just doesn't want to take the time to lern how to use it.
>
Why learn how to drive and maintain a Stanley Steamer when you can buy a
nice gasoline-engine car everywhere?
Joel Koltner
> I think I'll just try to find a method of importing the schematics into
> some common program, Paint Shop or something else, then ditch all the
> lettering.
Best of luck -- let us know if you find anything that works well. The problem
is that PostScript is a full-blown computer language, so "importing it"
amounts to writing a full-blown PostScript interpreter... which is a rather
non-trivial undertaking (...look at the size of GhostScript...!).
> HPGL was sooo much nicer. Never blurred, no font issues, it just worked.
Yes, although HPGL isn't a full-blown programming language... the "smarts"
behind HPGL had to be in the program that generated it rather than the printer
itself.
Granted, one might ask why a printer should have to be able to interpret
something as fancy as PostScript in the first place, but people like Don
Lancaster would have answers for you there. It was kinda cool back in the
mid-'80s to early-'90s that you could have your one PostScript printer and
write very simple programs to create complex plots more quickly and with much
better quality than many of the common PCs of the day could readily generate
themselves.
---Joel
Marte Schwarz
> Well, that's just the trick, with HPGL you didn't have to install
> anything. It just worked.
That's only because MS don't really like Adobe :-) They wanted to push
their own ttf.
>> Convert your PS-files to PDF and import them to
>> inkscape or just use pdsXchange. Even with the free Viewer, you can
>> insert comments, markups, texts...
> PDF viewers don't let you insert comment, usually.
Free PdfXchange does it definitely. I use it very often. It is my
default PDF-Reader even on Linux using wine.
Marte
Joel Koltner
message news:fnpl765q3a3pb8ric...@4ax.com...
> PSP Pro is almost as powerful as Corel Draw at a fraction of the
> price.
PaintShop Pro is now owned by Corel. They effectively bought out their
competition!
Which version are you using?
---Joel
Jim Thompson
I just discovered that myself. Like OrCAD, if you can't compete, buy
'em out :-(
I have v8.10... quite old now, but works well.
Joerg
> "Joerg" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8e04i9...@mid.individual.net...
>> I think I'll just try to find a method of importing the schematics into
>> some common program, Paint Shop or something else, then ditch all the
>> lettering.
>
> Best of luck -- let us know if you find anything that works well. The
> problem is that PostScript is a full-blown computer language, so
> "importing it" amounts to writing a full-blown PostScript interpreter...
> which is a rather non-trivial undertaking (...look at the size of
> GhostScript...!).
>
So far I can see the schematics in GSView. But converting them to PDF
always results in a blank page. The circuitry is sort of gray, not
black, and somehow that must be interpreted as white. And GSView seems
to only be able to have one file open at a time so it'll be constant
re-loading at the conf call this morning.
So it works but it does not work well.
>> HPGL was sooo much nicer. Never blurred, no font issues, it just worked.
>
> Yes, although HPGL isn't a full-blown programming language... the
> "smarts" behind HPGL had to be in the program that generated it rather
> than the printer itself.
>
I never understood why one needs a full-blown programming language to
render a schematic :-)
> Granted, one might ask why a printer should have to be able to
> interpret something as fancy as PostScript in the first place, but
> people like Don Lancaster would have answers for you there. It was
> kinda cool back in the mid-'80s to early-'90s that you could have your
> one PostScript printer and write very simple programs to create complex
> plots more quickly and with much better quality than many of the common
> PCs of the day could readily generate themselves.
>
For me Postscript was always what my former boss used to call
"technology looking for a home".
Joel Koltner
> Well, that may be so but for me only the results count. Right now
> nothing over here (other than GhostScript) will read in PS and
> Ghostcscript messes up some fonts. Plus the rendering is a wee bit
> fuzzy. HPGL in the 90's did just one thing: It worked. Always.
Try printing out your PostScript files on a real printer running Adobe's
licensed copy of PostScript, and I fully expect you'll have a very good,
clean, proper image without anything messed up. The fact that trying to take
a PostScript file and then import what's supposed to end up on paper into
another program isn't really a downfall of the language itself -- it's a
downfall of the PostScript "importer"... GhostScript, in your case.
> My sister sometimes tried to convince me that LaTex is better. But why?
> The *.doc format does everything I need, it's simple, no learning curve.
I tend to agree with you there, although there is some utility in LaTeX if you
end up writing a lot of book-length tomes that contain a lot of math. I was
required to write my master's thesis in LaTeX, and it was probably just about
a wash in terms of how much effort it would have been in Word vs. LaTeX... but
if I had to write one-hundred-and-some-odd pages anew each year, I suspect by
the 2nd or 3rd document LaTeX would end up being more productive. That's
always been the promise of LaTeX vs. WYSIWYG: Yes, there's a rather longer
initial learning period, but long-term there's supposed to be more of a
payback.
That being said, I do think LaTeX is far more fragile than it should be in
this day and age. It's just ridiculous that there are special rules for how
you have to "protect" text that's going to be, e.g., the caption for a figure
vs. what you'd do if you were just writing text in the body of your document.
I also think the "payback" period of LaTeX has been getting longer and longer
now that WYSISWYG word processors have started paying rather more attention to
the idea of separating "document data" from "document formatting."
(Ironically, it seems like the Internet and the success of CSS and XHTML
motivated this far more than LaTeX ever did.)
There is -- some day -- supposed to be a "LaTeX 3" that addresses some of
LaTeX 2e's problem. It was started about twenty years ago now... :-) -- I
suspect it'll never be finished, again because there just aren't enough
situations left where LaTeX is really worth it anymore.
---Joel
Joerg
> Hi Jörg,
>
>> Well, that's just the trick, with HPGL you didn't have to install
>> anything. It just worked.
>
> That's only because MS don't really like Adobe :-) They wanted to push
> their own ttf.
>
They all engage in turf protection, for example Adobe prefers that you
send them a substantial chunk of money before they let you annotate PDF
files. With other formats such as PNG that problem simply doesn't exist.
For me as the end user only one thing counts, and that is whether it
works with a reasonable effort of not. HPGL always did, PNG does right
now, PS (so far) does not.
>
>>> Convert your PS-files to PDF and import them to
>>> inkscape or just use pdsXchange. Even with the free Viewer, you can
>>> insert comments, markups, texts...
>
>> PDF viewers don't let you insert comment, usually.
>
> Free PdfXchange does it definitely. I use it very often. It is my
> default PDF-Reader even on Linux using wine.
>
Ok, maybe I should switch then. But only after I have figured out a way
to convert these PS files to PDF files that aren't just blank pages.
However, first I am going to try to convince the IC guys to send in a
more modern format such as PNG.
Joerg
> "Joerg" <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:8e23hh...@mid.individual.net...
>> Well, that may be so but for me only the results count. Right now
>> nothing over here (other than GhostScript) will read in PS and
>> Ghostcscript messes up some fonts. Plus the rendering is a wee bit
>> fuzzy. HPGL in the 90's did just one thing: It worked. Always.
>
> Try printing out your PostScript files on a real printer running Adobe's
> licensed copy of PostScript, and I fully expect you'll have a very good,
> clean, proper image without anything messed up. The fact that trying to
> take a PostScript file and then import what's supposed to end up on
> paper into another program isn't really a downfall of the language
> itself -- it's a downfall of the PostScript "importer"... GhostScript,
> in your case.
>
Isn't that a downfall for the language itself if it is so incompatible
that you first have to buy another set of proprietary tools to make it
work? It certainly means it hasn't made it into the mainstream, and in
terms of PS I'd venture to say that it never will.
>> My sister sometimes tried to convince me that LaTex is better. But why?
>> The *.doc format does everything I need, it's simple, no learning curve.
>
> I tend to agree with you there, although there is some utility in LaTeX
> if you end up writing a lot of book-length tomes that contain a lot of
> math. I was required to write my master's thesis in LaTeX, and it was
> probably just about a wash in terms of how much effort it would have
> been in Word vs. LaTeX... but if I had to write one-hundred-and-some-odd
> pages anew each year, I suspect by the 2nd or 3rd document LaTeX would
> end up being more productive. That's always been the promise of LaTeX
> vs. WYSIWYG: Yes, there's a rather longer initial learning period, but
> long-term there's supposed to be more of a payback.
>
> That being said, I do think LaTeX is far more fragile than it should be
> in this day and age. It's just ridiculous that there are special rules
> for how you have to "protect" text that's going to be, e.g., the caption
> for a figure vs. what you'd do if you were just writing text in the body
> of your document. I also think the "payback" period of LaTeX has been
> getting longer and longer now that WYSISWYG word processors have started
> paying rather more attention to the idea of separating "document data"
> from "document formatting." (Ironically, it seems like the Internet and
> the success of CSS and XHTML motivated this far more than LaTeX ever did.)
>
Ok, I wrote my thesis using IBM-EasyWriter. Yes, I am that old :-)
I have written module specs north of 50 pages starting in 1989 when I
first became self-employed (and even before at ATL). Back then I used
MS-Works at first, a few months later switched to MS-Word because it is
so much more powerful. But mostly because I received chunks of text from
clients in that format and it became clear that this would mutate into a
de-facto industry standard. Scope plots, scanned-in stuff, chunks of
schematics, whole schematics, all nicely imported. And this was the old
DOS version 5.0. They looked really nice with TOC, indexing, footnotes,
the whole nine yards.
Sometimes I get requests as to how I managed to insert a certain graph
because it existed only on paper. The answer was the Logitech ScanMan. A
few years ago I disassembled it, sad but it really isn't needed anymore.
That thing worked like a charm.
> There is -- some day -- supposed to be a "LaTeX 3" that addresses some
> of LaTeX 2e's problem. It was started about twenty years ago now... :-)
> -- I suspect it'll never be finished, again because there just aren't
> enough situations left where LaTeX is really worth it anymore.
>
Exactly. For some fancy type-setting it may have an advantage but I
really can't see any compelling reason why an engineer would need
anything more than what MS-Word or OpenOffice provide. Also, I often
have to start a doc-file which is then integrated into a bigger document
by my clients, sometimes hundreds of pages. They'd hurl their coffee
mugs at me if I delivered LaTex because they wouldn't know what to do
with it. Ask a few admins whether they know LaTex and many will likely
respond that they are allergic to latex ;-)