I remember when PDF came out, I didn't get it. I thought the problem was already solved by compressed postscript files! I was already used to downloading and sometimes printing paper documentation in this format.
It was natural to view Postscript files on NeXT and UNIX machines, and Ghostscript was already thing. What could be better than just using the "native" language of the printer? I didn't realize that this was not a common view, or even possible for most personal computers at the time.
I was also misinformed for quite some time about the internal format of PDF, assuming it was just PS wrapped up in a container. In a sense, this is true, but there's a lot more (embedded fonts, transparency, forms are just a few that come to mind).
> I was also misinformed for quite some time about the internal format of PDF, assuming it was just PS wrapped up in a container. In a sense, this is true, but there's a lot more (embedded fonts, transparency, forms are just a few that come to mind).
There's also a lot less, as PDF is not a full programming language like PS.
It was natural to view Postscript files on NeXT and UNIX machines, and Ghostscript was already thing. What could be better than just using the "native" language of the printer? I didn't realize that this was not a common view, or even possible for most personal computers at the time.
I was also misinformed for quite some time about the internal format of PDF, assuming it was just PS wrapped up in a container. In a sense, this is true, but there's a lot more (embedded fonts, transparency, forms are just a few that come to mind).