From owner-freebsd-questions  Wed Jul 23 10:20:29 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA01143
          for questions-outgoing; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:20:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lsmarso.dialup.access.net (lsmarso.dialup.access.net [166.84.254.60])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA01130
          for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 10:20:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from lsmarso@localhost)
	by lsmarso.dialup.access.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA08824
	for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:17:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <19970723131734.14706@panix.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:17:34 -0400
From: "Larry S. Marso" <lsmarso@panix.com>
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: ghostscript; visual quality of text
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.79
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

I notice that ghostscript produces a pretty lousy image (in terms of
resolution) when I use it to display *.ps files of articles and manuals.
It is *much* worse than a similarly configured Linux box I had a year ago.

However, I note that xdvi displays much higher quality images, even of the
postscript fonts (while it can't display embedded postscript images, which
is why I'm trying to use ghostscript).

Any ideas?

-- 
Larry S. Marso
lsmarso@panix.com