At 8:41 PM +0100 8/14/03, Mukund wrote:
I do agree that the interpreter is much simpler in case of the PDF due to
the absence of procedures, variables, conditionals, etc. But PDF has a
lot of other features which add complexity to it over PostScript. You
yourself have listed features such as JPEG2000, 16-bit images and JBIG.

True, but I don't consider those part of the parser...though true, you'd need all that handling in order to get to all possible data sets....

PDF also supports more types of fonts, supports hyperlinks,
annotations, bookmarks, thumbnails, scripting -- there you go, encryption
and signatures, plug-ins and more.

All true.

|       Not out of the box!  They would need to install Ghostscript
| (and associated drivers, which might also require something like
| GIMP-print).

To print PostScript, one doesn't need GIMP-print.

You do if you are trying to print to a printer for which a GS driver doesn't come standard (eg. Epson, HP, etc.). GIMP-print adds the extra drivers for GS to print to those devices.

My OS (Red Hat Linux) came with Ghostscript installed out of the box.

True. Linux is the only one (today) with a PS interpreter in the box...

I assume Mac OS X can also handle PostScript out of the box

Not currently, but the next major release will.

IIRC it uses CUPS as its print system.

True, which is why you can just download EPS-Ghostscript and GIMP-print and to add support for PS printing and lots of printers to it.

I am not sure about Windows as I haven't worked with it in a long time.

With a bunch of work, you can use GS to print to Windows - but not to every printer (I don't believe GIMP-print, for example, works on Windows).

Leonard -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leonard Rosenthol <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <> _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to