> Now Ghostview is just as freely available from the exact same
> company as Acrobat Reader. The only defect of the Postscript
> format versus PDF as far as I can see, is that some minimal
> installations of Windows 9x don't have Ghostview, but might
> (only might) have Acrobat Reader. If we do need to cater to
> those who don't have TeX, why can't we stick with Postscript?
I am (still) a Windows user and tend to use PS with Ghostview because I have
fewer printing problems and find the software much more readiyl compatible
with {La}TeX than PDF: it takes an extra step to produce PDF if I want to
include graphics (not typically applicable to pieces of music), and I find
the programs of psutils quite useful. Ghostview also prints wonderfully.
However, in Christian's reply to Dirk's "dissidence" it has been mentioned
that Ghostview renders better than PDF on the screen. This is definitely
{\em not} the case on my machine. The output is legible (sometimes only if I
zoom) and sometimes more consistent than PDF, but for screen reading Reader
is much better adapted. I have to admit that I do use DVI (Yap) for music, I
find it more convenient and quite useful, unless I am using PS content with
\special (this can apply to music), which in some cases is not well
interpreted.
So now I am curious why (apparently under UNIX/Linux) Ghostview performs
better on-screen than Reader.
Mike
_______________________________________________
TeX-music mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://sunsite.dk/mailman/listinfo/tex-music
