[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: pdf - and on Windows?
From: |
KHMan |
Subject: |
Re: pdf - and on Windows? |
Date: |
Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:08:27 +0800 |
User-agent: |
Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708) |
James Mansion wrote:
[snip]
Is lout's postscript focus going to be a hindrance for day to day use?
I'd rather not cough
for the full Adobe product until I know I'll actually make it as far as
publishing something,
rather than fantasizing about doing so, but if I'm going to give it much
of a try I'll want
something that produces good looking pdfs. I've not been.very impressed
by ghostscript
as a back end to TeX - I'm hoping to use something that embeds fonts as
needed.
Speaking as a off-and-on user of Lout... Can you be more specific
about "not been.very impressed by ghostscript"? It used to be that
the TeX DVI -> PS -> PDF toolchain produces Type 3 fonts which are
rendered bitmaps from the Metafont stroked originals. That looked
horrible and rendered slowly. But AFAIK, nobody ever generates a
document with Type 3 fonts anymore. With pdfTeX, as with Lout,
everybody is using stroked fonts, usually the standard Adobe set
or embedded Type 42 fonts. I am under the impression that
Ghostscript works well these days.
Can anyone recommend what I should install to give lout a fair showing?
Not sure what you mean, but often we point people to the User's
Guide as an example of what Lout can produce. You can get them
here: http://lout.wiki.sourceforge.net/Documentation
I don't mind something that watermarks pages in a demo version so long
as the
previews in Acrobat Reader on screen look good.
No Free Software forces any watermarks on the user... I guess
maybe you are discussing a Distiller demo.
--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia