Back to home page

DOS ain't dead

Forum index page

Log in | Register

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view

MuPDF 1.2 (2013-02-27) -- MUTOOL + MUDRAW (Announce)

posted by Rugxulo(R) Homepage, Usono, 01.05.2013, 15:16

> > Yes, default mutool and mudraw Win32 binaries seem to (upon very
> > light testing) still work under HX, but the others don't
>
> most notably ???

I don't understand. It's been mentioned that the GUI viewers can't (or at least don't) work under HX. So your only luck is using MUTOOL or MUDRAW.

> > I'm honestly not sure how useful it is for us
>
> very much

I'm not PNG obsessed like you, but apparently they aren't compressed as optimally after writing. "advpng -z4 *.png" works. Then again, unlikely to distribute those when the actual PDF (or, even better, plain text) is smaller.

My .ZIP of P5 Pascal would shrink in half (4.8 MB to 2.3 MB) if I removed the bloated ISO7185.PDF file. (I'm not sure what advantages the pages-as-scanned-images PDF version has over the included .html conversion. IIRC there are no graphics and barely any fonts or fancy text. In other words, probably useless, but oh well. Even using "ps2pdf" via gs 8.71 on the .ps [made with TeX/WEB/Pascal] from elsewhere is 1/10th of the size [400 kb vs. 4000 kb]. So meh.)

> > (compared to older Ghostscript or XPDF)
>
> XPDF can't brew pixel images from PDF ;-)

Didn't it optionally have PDFTOPPM? But we (I?) didn't compile that due to needing FreeType. It might work, dunno. Not exactly curious to find out right now.

> > MUDRAW can convert to .PNG, but I'm not sure of the best viewer for that
> > (QPNG? Pictview?
>
> Right :-)

Which? I even had trouble with DuglView not working for me. (Maybe Intel gfx bugs of this computer, hi Laaca!) Having a tiny thumbnail preview is nice (QPV, DISPLAY), but it's not crucial (and sadly those aren't open source). (Workaround: convert .PNG or .JPG to .BMP or .GIF and use XPL0's TH.EXE.)

> > Or just use some converter (Image Magick?) for different format
>
> Why ??? What's broken with PNG ?

Name one 16-bit PNG viewer. I can't think of any. So you're stuck converting the format to .BMP (or similar). There are hundreds of (old) viewers for DOS, and most of them don't support .PNG. I have nothing against .PNG, but it's certainly less common (at least regarding legacy software) than GIF, BMP, PCX, JPG, etc.

I'm really no license purist, far from it. But sometimes even I gotta say, "Yeah, sources would be better."

In particular, I know image viewers try to choose the biggest, most color-appropriate mode for each image, but it's annoying when this particular desktop (monitor? low-end integrated gfx?) takes like three seconds to changes modes for every file. It really doesn't need to change mode between "pages" using the same resolution and colors. Also, I think panning is unavoidable on larger images unless you're lucky enough to have a monitor / card that supports everything. (Apparently mine doesn't like 1280 x whatever. Even you complained about that recently, IIRC.)

> > 3). It seems like Ghostscript and MuPDF are somehow connected
>
> AFAIK MuPDF is based on Ghostscript ...

Or using the same rendering engine or maybe fitz is a rewrite of the graphics lib backend, dunno.

> > Also the various licensing changes over the years are confusing
>
> What did change ??? You don't have to bother if you don't run modified MOOH
> on a public server ;-)

Still, I'm so apathetic to licensing, it's almost always pointless.

> > Not sure what's different in GNU Ghostscript, but clearly (as has been
> > mentioned before) none of these directly support DOS anymore (or at
> > least not VESA drivers
>
> Did it ever support them ???

Officially? Dunno, but there is (IIRC) at least one DOS "port" with VESA support. Maybe Mik added it, dunno.

> > you want smaller .EXEs, try "upx --best --lzma --hyper-brute" (avoided
> here
> > because it would've hurt compression across both files, which both use
> the same
>
> You got it :-)

BTW, now I'm frustrated because I think I compressed the .EXEs incorrectly. I thought I was saving RAM, but I think even dictionary size isn't everything (and -ms=16m certainly is bad for 18 MB of .EXE, ugh). So my ideal that it would "mostly" (and painlessly) extract in 16 MB in DOS is probably not realistic.

My old mu_tl_dw.7z is 6.5 MB while I can compress a newer one via "7za a -mx9 -md=16m new mutool.exe mudraw.exe" to only 3.5 MB. Both still seem to need approx. 21 MB of DPMI (eg. "dpmi -m 0x5000") under DOSEMU for "7za t". So whatever I thought I was accomplishing, it didn't work (and just bloated up the main .7z).

I guess I'll refresh the .7z on iBiblio with the smaller one. (Same build just different compression. Repack it yourself if you don't want to download again.) Done.

 

Complete thread:

Back to the forum
Board view  Mix view
15115 Postings in 1359 Threads, 249 registered users, 17 users online (0 registered, 17 guests)
DOS ain't dead | Admin contact
RSS Feed
powered by my little forum