From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 00:04:06 +0800 From: "Hongzheng Wang" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <6EBE4BD8-A3B6-4EBD-9876-7FC924A1558B@corpus-callosum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <6EBE4BD8-A3B6-4EBD-9876-7FC924A1558B@corpus-callosum.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] TeX - Plan 9 model Topicbox-Message-UUID: 76ac7e78-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Although the quality of pdf files produced by dvips and ps2pdf (the tex engine in most tex distributions have been set to pdftex even when dvi format is selected) might not be the same as that outputed directly by pdftex, the problems of appearance is not the key. Some files look horrid on, say acroread, is due to the raster type3 fonts in fact. In another word, by sticking to type1 fonts only, no distinguishable differences of appearance could be found for the two distinct producing chains. On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:02 PM, Jeff Sickel wrote: > I'd highly recommend going the pdftex route instead http://www.tug.org/applications/pdftex/) > . Pdftex generates much more compatible PDF files that the dvips > route--aka, dvips output prints to paper fine, looks horrid on most > PDF viewers. > > Now if I could only get more time in the day--as the time change to > save the US money myth has been debunked by statistics from Indiana. > > -jas -- HZ