Re: [Groff] Werner's Margin Notes

[Peter Schaffter]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2005, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> Never heard of them before, but wouldn't they be likely to be based on
> runoff or troff, and thus siblings of groff? The Quadritek (see e.g.
> http://macpro.freeshell.org/quadritek/q1.html, but look out for the Mac
> advocacy) is from 1977.
> 
> I would love to hear more about the ancient phototypesetters and how they
> related to the world of troff.

I just checked out the Quadritek article.  Wow!  A blast from the
past.  The article's good.  In fact, the whole thing captures the
flavour of the machine and the times perfectly.  The only (picayune)
amendment to the article I'd make is that the Quad could set type
down to 4 point in the Univers family, hence the given lower limit,
5-1/2 point, isn't strictly accurate.

One thing the article doesn't mention is the sound of the machine.
The fonts were mounted on a spinning disk, which created a lot of
white noise.  The lens moved on a focusing rail every time the point
size changed, producing a grinding, thunking sound.  The mechanism
for advancing the galley medium clunked.  And the flash tube itself
produced a rapid series of chiffs.  So you might say the experience
of the Quad was sonically textured (if you were being kind).

Another thing missing from the article is the fact that type was
literally set one line at a time.  You entered your codes and text
in a small section at the bottom of the screen, then hit Return.
What you'd just typed then jumped to the upper portion of the screen
(so you could keep track of what you were doing) and the line was
immediately typeset.  If you were doing a big chunk of justified
copy, the machine automatically added the return (and hence typeset
the line) at the appropriate place, which could be very annoying
if you made a mistake because there was no way to recover from
it.  (Later system upgrades made it possible to code an entire job
without it actually being typeset, giving you the then-unheard-of
luxury to correct your mistakes before actually running the file!)

To offset these liabilities, the Quad (and all dedicated
phototypesetters I ever worked on) had a really great status
line--something I miss terribly.  It not only kept track of basic
things like the current line length, font, pointsize, leading, etc.,
it also told you which indent and/or tab was active, your position
from the left margin, your precise depth on the galley, what degree
of line kerning was in effect, and so on.  In short, the status
line reported on every aspect of type, making critically accurate
typesetting *easier* than it is with most contemporary
applications.  (Understand, I use "critically accurate" in the
context of those days when a master proofreader could lose a
significant portion of her/his paycheck if s/he signed off on a job
where there was an error of even so much as 1 point!)

I didn't encounter *roff until the mid-90s, so I'm not in a position
to say whether Quads and Compugraphics and whatnot were roff
siblings.  I strongly suspect not, though.  Phototypesetters were
dedicated computers, i.e did one thing and one thing only: set type.
Each manufacturer, I believe, wrote their own operating system and
software.  There was no way to read a tape or disk created on one
system on another system, let alone the individual files on it.

The Quadritek was never a major player, though.  The hands down
winners in phototypesetting were Compugraphic and Linotronic.  The
CG 8400/8600 series, introduced at the beginning of the 80s, were
beautiful machines.  Software upgrades were ALWAYS stable, the
then-new laser technology was scrupulously implemented, and the
fonts were amongst the best-cut I've ever seen.  Not to mention that
incredible technological advance, the Winchester hard drive. :)

-- 
Peter Schaffter
  Author of _The Schumann Proof_ (RendezVous Press, Canada)
  http://www.golden.net/~ptpi/theschumannproof.html