DECwindows & Display PostScript compatible?

[Donald D Rice]

In article <foo.677983212 at adelbert5.Stanford.EDU> foo at adelbert5.Stanford.EDU (castor fu) writes:
>Here's a question which has been irking me for a while, for which I would like
>an answer:
>
>Does anyone actually use Display PostScript under DECwindows?  If so,
>do they just accept the fact that they will have to put a 3100 or better
>on the desk of every person who might use DPS applications?

We rely on it.  The PS viewer is the main reason we still use DECwindows rather
than a generic X11R4 manager.  It makes a handy TeX previewer in conjunction
with dvi2ps (especially when using \special to pull in encapsulated PostScript)
and saves me having to generate several megabytes of additional fonts to use
with xdvi or whatever.  Also, we've found that for a lot of numerical
programs that it is actually easier and more efficient (shorter run times,
smaller memory requirements) to have the programs put out results directly
in PostScript than to use traditional plotting packages.  Some of the other
DS users around here are also very attached to the previewer and wouldn't
think of buying a workstation that didn't include a PS viewer.
>
>I am sort of annoyed to find that with our VT1200, we have no obvious
>way of using DPS applications.  It seems that one should be able to 
>somehow have at worst a DPS interpreter residing on some friendly host
>to feed the little VT1200. In fact, if I go and take the Ultrix 3.0
>dxpsview, I can use that as a previewer, so this is clearly possible. . . .
>One could conceive of a server for the server which would monitor
>the incoming data stream for extensions, font requests, etc. and handle
>them before passing the simplified stuff on to the dumber x terminal.
>
Our students, who use X terminals under xdm/twm on the DS5000s, have also
complained about not having PS viewers available to them.  We've partially
solved the problem by setting up GNU's ghostscript.  Amazingly, it compiled
without any problems on the DS5000.  For the price ($0), it does an outstanding
job.

>I have nothing against DEC making potentially useful extensions to the
>X windows standard.  Although this can tend to "lock one in" to a particular
>vendor, if the benefits are great enough this is tolerable. . . . but 
>if the extension is not even compatible with current DEC equipment 
>why pay any attention at all? I might as well buy an NCD or GraphOn or
>Tektronix X terminal. . . or buy a HP xxx/720 for higher performance.
>
Rumor has it that X11R5 will include DPS.  I really hope so, if it means
X terminals with built-in DPS will become cheaper.  I don't really see that
this locks us into buying DEC.  They are just ahead of the game in this
area.  Better we should get on the cases of the other vendors to give us the
same capabilities.

I would like to see the memory requirements cleaned up, though, so that when
we aren't using DPS, it would go away completely and free up some memory.
Still, we're surviving with it the way it is, and if I got rid of the
capability just to save a little memory, there would be a riot...

Anyway, take a look at ghostscript, write letters to the other vendors to
let them know what you want (and yell at their sales reps), and hope that
X11R5 provides some answers.

-- 
Don Rice                                  Internet: ddr at flux.isr.alaska.edu
Geophysical Institute                     E-mail:   fnddr at alaska.bitnet
University of Alaska                      Phone:    (907) 474-7569
Fairbanks, AK 99775                       Loran:    64.86N 212.16E