13 Dec
2005
13 Dec
'05
4:44 a.m.
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 20:06:59 -0600
Jim Leonard <trixter at oldskool.org> wrote:
I was limited in the same way. There was a time (yes, for me
there really was) when I loaded Windows 2.11 to get a vector-based
drawing package that I could print from on my lousy dot matrix
printer (Micrografx In*A*Vision, which was sold including a
Windows 1 runtime version in case you didn't have the full Windows
on your system). And I wrote papers for school using the 'fancy'
fonts that I could only obtain on my nine-pin dot matrix printer
using Windows. Back then, Windows was something you darted in and
out of for specific uses, of course...
woodelf wrote:
That's a bit elitist. Some of us weren't that lucky.
When I look at my hoary old Simtelnet MS-DOS CDROM from the very
early 90's, there is a TEX directory. TEX was ported to MS-DOS,
and not recently.
I will admit that *I* didn't know what 'TEX' was at the time.
He
wasn't talking about document creation, he was talking
about > printing, for
which he is right on the money. If you
used Word > Perfect 5 for DOS, you were limited to the fonts
your printer > supported. If you used Geoworks, or
Ghostscript (I used a retail > package called "GOSCRIPT"), or
Win 3.1, you could use any font you > want and the print
subsystem would just rasterize it as graphics.
But then we have TEX created under a unix system for real
work. GUI's are
not the way to print out stuff.
GUI is irrelevant. When I was limited to a single font and
80-char/66-line output -- on a device capable of 200 DPI output
-- I tore my hair out. It's not my fault the only decent
low-cost print systems were attached to a GUI.