Date: Wed, 23 Jul 1997 17:48:08 -0400 From: "Larry S. Marso" <lsmarso@panix.com> To: jbrinkley@crosslogic.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ghostscript; visual quality of text Message-ID: <19970723174808.51946@panix.com> In-Reply-To: <852564DD.0062D32C.00@love.crosslogic.com>; from jbrinkley@crosslogic.com on Wed, Jul 23, 1997 at 02:02:35PM -0400 References: <852564DD.0062D32C.00@love.crosslogic.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Uh, that'd be FreeBSD. Ghostscript included with the OS, not any of the alternatives in the ports. Would you recommend one? -- Larry S. Marso lsmarso@panix.com On Wed, Jul 23, 1997 at 02:02:35PM -0400, jbrinkley@crosslogic.com wrote: > > Which version of Ghostscript are you using, and with what OS? > > silverwing > > > > > > > "Larry S. Marso" <lsmarso@panix.com> on 07/23/97 01:17:34 PM > > To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG > cc: > Subject: ghostscript; visual quality of text > > 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 > > > > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970723174808.51946>