Hi all,
Well I finally got around to upgrading, downloading and installing Pro 5,
Version 5.0.1.37 to be precise, my first test was to see the new PDF functions
in action. The first one I tried to open, well it oened OK but did not
display the text and the graphics were there but all over the place. This
PDF was created by printing a postscript file from Amiga PGS version 4.1.5
and run through Adobe Acrobat distiller on my Mac. The thing I think might be
the problem here is that it was a signature consisting of 4 A4 pages to 2 up
on A3 (hope you understand what I mean). My guess is that signatures won't
work.
The other problem I faced was the old font problem which showed when opening
that one and the original A4 PDFs. Even though the same fonts are installed
on the Amiga (actually Amithlon) and the Debian box the differences in naming
convention is a right royal pain. Actually I can't understand why fonts come
into it when the fonts are embedded in the postscript output which gets
"converted" to PDF and upon opening shouldn't they be dislayed from
internally not what's installed on the computer?

Testing has not been extensive as I haven't had time to do anything more than
what I have described, ie opening some PDFs.

--
Ken

ken at kenandjj dot net

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tuesday 02 August 2005 07:25 pm, Ken Harvey wrote:
[snip]
> The other problem I faced was the old font problem which showed when
> opening that one and the original A4 PDFs. Even though the same fonts are
> installed on the Amiga (actually Amithlon) and the Debian box the
> differences in naming convention is a right royal pain. Actually I can't
> understand why fonts come into it when the fonts are embedded in the
> postscript output which gets "converted" to PDF and upon opening shouldn't
> they be dislayed from internally not what's installed on the computer?

Import of embedded fonts is on the development list. In fact, all PgS
documents are to get font embedding and extraction which should really help
with the font issues.

Just wanted to let you know there was hope in this area.

Tim Doty

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:36 am, Tim Doty wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 August 2005 07:25 pm, Ken Harvey wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > The other problem I faced was the old font problem which showed when
> > opening that one and the original A4 PDFs. Even though the same fonts are
> > installed on the Amiga (actually Amithlon) and the Debian box the
> > differences in naming convention is a right royal pain. Actually I can't
> > understand why fonts come into it when the fonts are embedded in the
> > postscript output which gets "converted" to PDF and upon opening
> > shouldn't they be dislayed from internally not what's installed on the
> > computer?
>
> Import of embedded fonts is on the development list. In fact, all PgS
> documents are to get font embedding and extraction which should really help
> with the font issues.
>
> Just wanted to let you know there was hope in this area.
>

Thanks Tim, that's great news.

I had the ambition of printing a manual provided with some software (as is the
custom these days -- no printed manuals) in PDF form 436 pages. It's on a
Windows machine and I thought I could use the multiple pages per page of the
print function (reading this PDF via Adobe Reader and printing across the
network using Linux version of Turborint) but that did not provide the
"booklet" format I wanted, so I got the bright idea of grabbing it across the
network into my newly acquired PGS (as described above) and use PGS to do
what I wanted, unfortunately I struck that font problem so gave up and am now
printing out normal size, but at least duplex cuts the paper requirement in
half.

I hope that horizon is not too far away. It would have saved me a lot had it
been here now.

> Tim Doty
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Ken

ken at kenandjj dot net

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tuesday 02 August 2005 08:05 pm, Ken Harvey wrote:
[snip]
> I hope that horizon is not too far away. It would have saved me a lot had
> it been here now.

Agreed. Alas, I think it will see the light of day on other platforms first
(Deron seems to be hard at work on Amiga and related with intentions of then
hitting OS X). Not griping, just wishing there were more developers ;^)

Tim Doty

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:15 am, Tim Doty wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 August 2005 08:05 pm, Ken Harvey wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I hope that horizon is not too far away. It would have saved me a lot had
> > it been here now.
>
> Agreed. Alas, I think it will see the light of day on other platforms first
> (Deron seems to be hard at work on Amiga and related with intentions of
> then hitting OS X). Not griping, just wishing there were more developers
> ;^)
>
Too true.

So to spell it out as you see it the order will be ....

I still prefer to work with the Amiga version, it has a feel about it (like
favourite slippers). I have not upgraded to 5.0 with either Amiga or Mac
versions because there was a question posed quite some time back by several
people, myself included about upgrades for those who had the 4.x versions but
who also had the extras bought separately before they became part of the Pro
version. It seemed to me and I guess that what others were hinting at is that
4.x plus extras = 4.x Pro so an upgrade would be from 4.x Pro to 5.x Pro.
However, unless I missed it there was never an answer.

It's not a matter of being a cheapskate either as I have been a long time
supporter and tried to always upgrade but as I only get a small (as in less
than $100 per fortnight) pension and my wife only works part-time I have to
be super careful with limited funds. If that were not the case I would have
upgraded my 2 Amiga copies and Mac copy long ago. Anyway I should probably
not be airing this here but ...

Anyway I have always loved Pagestream and am thankful that Deron has continued
when others have given up.

> Tim Doty
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Ken

ken at kenandjj dot net

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I have been using the linux version long enough it feels normal, but it took a
while. I, too, was accustomed to the Amiga version and occassionally still
miss it. I recently got UAE going again so I even have access to that version
again, but it is just too painful working within the confines of an
emulator...

Tim Doty

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:23 pm, Tim Doty wrote:
> I have been using the linux version long enough it feels normal, but it
> took a while. I, too, was accustomed to the Amiga version and occassionally
> still miss it. I recently got UAE going again so I even have access to that
> version again, but it is just too painful working within the confines of an
> emulator...
>

Yeah! Hard to give up on an old "friend". If only there was a Linux port of
ImageFX, Photogenics and a few others .... one could consider just using
Linux. ;)
> Tim Doty
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Ken

ken at kenandjj dot net

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tuesday 02 August 2005 09:37 pm, Ken Harvey wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:23 pm, Tim Doty wrote:
> > I have been using the linux version long enough it feels normal, but it
> > took a while. I, too, was accustomed to the Amiga version and
> > occassionally still miss it. I recently got UAE going again so I even
> > have access to that version again, but it is just too painful working
> > within the confines of an emulator...
>
> Yeah! Hard to give up on an old "friend". If only there was a Linux port of
> ImageFX, Photogenics and a few others .... one could consider just using
> Linux. ;)

Well, there actually is of Photogenics! Unfortunately it never really measured
up to the Amiga version (it is a rewrite) and the new version is *WAY* out of
my price range. Still, I use Photogenics on occasion though the GIMP is my
graphics workhorse. IMO there is no artistic graphics program that compares
with Photogenics -- my best computer art has without a doubt been done in
Photogenics.

Tim Doty

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:55 pm, Tim Doty wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 August 2005 09:37 pm, Ken Harvey wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 12:23 pm, Tim Doty wrote:
> > > I have been using the linux version long enough it feels normal, but it
> > > took a while. I, too, was accustomed to the Amiga version and
> > > occassionally still miss it. I recently got UAE going again so I even
> > > have access to that version again, but it is just too painful working
> > > within the confines of an emulator...
> >
> > Yeah! Hard to give up on an old "friend". If only there was a Linux port
> > of ImageFX, Photogenics and a few others .... one could consider just
> > using Linux. ;)
>
> Well, there actually is of Photogenics! Unfortunately it never really
> measured up to the Amiga version (it is a rewrite) and the new version is
> *WAY* out of my price range. Still, I use Photogenics on occasion though
> the GIMP is my graphics workhorse. IMO there is no artistic graphics
> program that compares with Photogenics -- my best computer art has without
> a doubt been done in Photogenics.

That's right I had forgotten. A long time ago I went to the website in search
of an upgrade/crossgrade path but found none Just a very expensive new
version which like you was way out of my grasp pricewise.

I don't seem to do as much nowadays but there are one or two things I use it
for. The main thing is batch conversion to .png format which I could do in
ImageFX but Photogenics makes a much smaller file. Must have a better
algorithm.

I would love to come to grips with The Gimp but I have a condition which makes
for absorbing, processing and remembering new information very difficult. So
I more or less have to try to stick with what I know.

Good to compare notes Tim. Always see your contributions to the group and
appreciate your input.

>
> Tim Doty
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
Ken

ken at kenandjj dot net

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Tuesday 02 August 2005 10:19 pm, Ken Harvey wrote:
[snip]
> I don't seem to do as much nowadays but there are one or two things I use
> it for. The main thing is batch conversion to .png format which I could do
> in ImageFX but Photogenics makes a much smaller file. Must have a better
> algorithm.

PNG does have a compression level setting. Do either of those let you set it?
(It's been too long since I've used Photogenics to remember and /way/ too
long for ImageFX). If you use linux there is a wonderful group of
applications called netpbm that allow for batch processing. The only problem
with its handling of PNG is loss of the alpha channel (although more of the
netpbm applications are being written to handle this properly).

> I would love to come to grips with The Gimp but I have a condition which
> makes for absorbing, processing and remembering new information very
> difficult. So I more or less have to try to stick with what I know.

The GIMP is okay for a poor man's Photoshop (especially given the price), but
it has its bumps and unfortunate limitations.

> Good to compare notes Tim. Always see your contributions to the group and
> appreciate your input.

Well, I enjoy chatting and helping. Its been nice talking.

Tim Doty