From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.tex.context/523 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Gilbert van den Dobbelsteen" Newsgroups: gmane.comp.tex.context Subject: Re: Print versus Screen Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1999 11:31:46 +0200 Sender: owner-ntg-context@let.uu.nl Message-ID: <00b501beb0c8$902f0160$0c01a8c1@worf.login-bv.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035391375 24693 80.91.224.250 (23 Oct 2002 16:42:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:42:55 +0000 (UTC) Original-To: , "David Arnold" Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.tex.context:523 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.tex.context:523 > >Also, when printing Up-001-p.pdf on my HPIIIP LaserJet printer, the colored >links, such as \goto, are dithered and display poorly on paper. Thoughts? I use a HP laserjet III, and the results are reasonable, but I advice you to use Ghostscript for printing, Acrobat makes a mess of things. The fact is that adobe products only seem to work reasonable on postscript printers, which is understandable from their point of view. You could also try to make black-and-stuff. Since our company uses GhostScript on a Linux machine(as print-server), client-side printing has improved significantly, all windows programs print *a lot* faster when using postscript. Performance improvements are a factor 5 if not more. Gilbert.