frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (04/08/90)
In article <18000049@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) morris@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
)... Yes, Apple has a better technology (quadratic curve definition vs.
)cubic which render faster), and the new system will simplify the rats nest of
)problems caused by font ID conflicts. But the real reason Royal will succeed
)while other great technology has failed is quite simple. Royal makes cents!
)By breaking the monopolistic power of Adobe, and providing the font technology
)without licencing fees, Apple has certainly executed a coup. Royal fonts will
)be cheaper and easier to use. And better. They will work for the same reason
)that great technology has often failed, because of the all important dollar.
I have to question the statement that Apple has a better technology.
Would you justify that, please?
Quadratics may draw faster, but they are inherently less smooth and
require more points, and hence more storage space, to define a path
comparable to PostScript. It remains to be seen whether or not Royal
fonts will be cheaper. Why will they be better?
How will they be "easier to use"? I've read all of the
quoted articles, and while it doesn't seem clear to me which
technology (or should I say strategy) is better, it does seem apparent
that Apple's primary motivation is money, not altruism.
Also, the "coup" hasn't been executed yet. At least one of the
articles mentioned that it can take years to create digital typefaces,
and Adobe certainly is well entrenched in that area. (e.g., I can't
imagine my local Lino shop dumping their huge investment in PostScript;
come to think of it, I don't want to dump mine either)
--
Frank Kolnick,
Basis Computer Systems Inc.
UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frankfrank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (04/08/90)
In article <5363@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: >... imagine my local Lino shop dumping their huge investment in PostScript; >come to think of it, I don't want to dump mine either) Incidentally, that investment includes not only typefaces, but a sizeable collection of drawings and documents, not to mention the software (will there be a Royal version of FreeHand? Illustrator?) and that LaserWriter in the corner. I'd give up the Mac if it suddenly left me stranded. (and no, I don't want a pile of translation utilities) -- Frank Kolnick, Basis Computer Systems Inc. UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
wwtaroli@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Bill Taroli) (04/10/90)
In article <5364@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: >In article <5363@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: >>... imagine my local Lino shop dumping their huge investment in PostScript; >>come to think of it, I don't want to dump mine either) > >Incidentally, that investment includes not only typefaces, but a sizeable >collection of drawings and documents, not to mention the software >(will there be a Royal version of FreeHand? Illustrator?) and that >LaserWriter in the corner. I'd give up the Mac if it suddenly left >me stranded. (and no, I don't want a pile of translation utilities) Well, from what I've heard about TrueType, you will not have to give up any of the PostScript benefits that you now enjoy (i.e. Freehand, LaserWriter, etc.). Apple is apparently (correct me if I'm wrong, someone) working the "conversion" stuff into the OS. That is, if bitmap is found use it... if not, check for TrueType... etc, etc. So, PostScript stuff should (or so they say) still work. They were unclear on how this would affect printing on current laserwriters... but did say that it would still work. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath on 7.0... and I certainly will wait at least 3 or 4 months before even considering the switchover. Someone mentioned the bug updates to 6.0... and I'm sure that this will continue to plague 7.0 (or any software release for that matter). Bill Taroli WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu -- ******************************************************************************* * Bill Taroli (WWTAROLI@RODAN.acs.syr.edu) | "You can and must understand * * Syracuse University, Syracuse NY | computers NOW!" -- Ted Nelson * *******************************************************************************
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (04/10/90)
In article <5363@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: >How will they be "easier to use"? I've read all of the >quoted articles, and while it doesn't seem clear to me which >technology (or should I say strategy) is better, it does seem apparent >that Apple's primary motivation is money, not altruism. Royal will be much easier to use. It will be merely dropping the fonts in the system folder and go. There wont be this hassel that ATM currently has of installing bit map fonts, choosing BI Helvetica Italic font, or whatever and running atm as an init... Oh, i guess some of the problems with atm are fixed by an adobe program, but yet there is another investment. I'm not dropping Postscript either. It still is the top system. But Royal seems to make more sense... more sense for Apple, and for the users. ============================================================================== == Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 ========= BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A. ===== == USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu ============ 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725 ======== == BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet ============= Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBS == == GEnie: C.Silverberg ================== America Online: Silverberg ========
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (04/10/90)
In article <11255@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes: >Royal will be much easier to use. It will be merely dropping the fonts in the >system folder and go. There wont be this hassel that ATM currently has of >installing bit map fonts, choosing BI Helvetica Italic font, or whatever and >running atm as an init... Oh, i guess some of the problems with atm are fixed >by an adobe program, but yet there is another investment. I wouldn't call that much easier to use...here's the scheme: Royal ----- Drag fonts onto hard disk. Drag fonts into System Folder Drag fonts into System File. ATM --- Drag ATM and font files from disk onto hard disk. Drag files into System Folder. Go to control panel and set your cache. By the way, I believe both ATM and Royal have bitmaps for frequently used sizes. This allows hand-tuning of fonts for the best results. To get Bold Italic Helvetica with either System you can go to Helvetica, then bold it, and italicize it. You don't have to select BI Helvetica Italic. The one think I hope Apple does change with the evolution of TrueType is to redo the font manager. Currently, you can have Plain/Bold/Italic/BoldItal and nothing else. No semi-bolds? No blacks? No lights? Hopefully, this will change and Adobe will probably be happy to release bitmaps to support those formats. Ken -- Ken Hancock '90 | DISCLAIMER: I'm graduating and looking for Consultant | a job, so I'll stand by my words. Computer Resource Center |============================================== Dartmouth College | EMAIL: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (04/10/90)
In article <11255@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes: >Royal will be much easier to use. It will be merely dropping the fonts in the >system folder and go. There wont be this hassel that ATM currently has of >installing bit map fonts, choosing BI Helvetica Italic font, or whatever and >running atm as an init... Um, there are TWO issues here. One is Royal vs. PostScript. The other is Apple's System 7 vs. Apple's System 6. This ease-of-use issue is really a red herring; it's Apple's current system design that forces Adobe to go the way they go now. Once system 7 comes out, I'll bet you'll just drop ATM and PostScript fonts in the system folder and go. No different (except for the ATM part) than for the Royal fonts. Of course, this is just speculation. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner
morris@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (04/10/90)
Remember, Apple is not dumping postscript, it is only dumping Adobe fonts. They licensed a postcript clone interpreter from Microsoft. Royal fonts will be easier to use because they will be incorperated into the system, not with a hack like ATM, they will be installed by dragging them into a folder, which eliminates pesky font ID problems (anyone who has worked with different fonts and a Lino service knows these) and Apple will publish their full specifications which will allow all the type makers free access (and public domain & shareware font makers). All this will be gracefully integrated into System 7.0 which means any software which uses standard system calls will work (about 98%). The only programs that will have a problem are ones that don't use standard system calls (and ones that use postscript font rendering stuff). Why will Royal be better? Faster rendering for slightly larger files, fully integrated screen and printer fonts (not like the mess there is now), true WYSIWYG, peace with fonts, peace on earth! No more nasty cludges and third party font wars (like with bitstream and other companies).
m_herodotus@coors.dec.com (Mario Herodotus - Digital Customer Support Center (800) 525-6570) (04/10/90)
OK I'd like to know what happens to the postscript files I create
using the command-F trick in the LaserWriter dialog after Apple switches to
TrueType? Right now, I create a postscript0 file on my mac and upload it to
one of our VAXes and print to an LPS40 or LN03R, after TrueType how will the
fonts be handled?
Mario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't afford my own opinions, and DEC won't pay for them either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Herodotus [ CX03 1/K4 ] | m_herodotus@coors.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corporation |
Customer Support Center | - or - m_herodotus%coors.dec@decwrl.dec.com
305 Rockrimmon Blvd. |
Colorado Springs, CO 80919 | - or - ...!decwrl!coors.dec.com!m_herodotus
(800) 525-6570 Ext 25520 |
[direct line (719) 592-5520] |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (04/10/90)
In article <11255@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes: >Royal will be much easier to use. It will be merely dropping the fonts in the >system folder and go. There wont be this hassel that ATM currently has of >installing bit map fonts, choosing BI Helvetica Italic font, or whatever and >running atm as an init... Oh, i guess some of the problems with atm are fixed >by an adobe program, but yet there is another investment. Hmmm. I thought *all* fonts (Adobe included) would be managed by just dropping them into the system folder (but I don't really know). However, I don't think it's fair to lay the blame for font IDs and names at Adobe's door. The scheme was invented by Appl, after all, and I believe the cryptic naming conventions are a result of narrow menus, lack of inter-manufacturer standards, etc. In any case, let's hope everbody's smarter now and will adhere to a consistent design. (btw, ATM has nothing to do with this particular hassle; it's just an add-on to overcome the weaknesses of QuickDraw. Further such appendages from Adobe will clean up the menus and also allow eidtable paths to be extracted from typefaces. neat.) -- Frank Kolnick, Basis Computer Systems Inc. UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (04/10/90)
There are only two fundamental technical differences between TrueType and Adobe's Type 1, as I see things: 1. TrueType fonts can contain information in addition to character glyph descriptions, such as ductility, contextual forms, kerning, and ligatures. This is mainly of use to the as-yet-nonexistent Line Layout Manager, but will become more important as time goes on, especially with non-Roman writing systems. In my view, this is TrueType's biggest win. 2. Apple has chosen to place imperative hints into TrueType font descriptions themselves, whereas Adobe Type 1 fonts use declarative hints which are interpreted by the rasterizer. This makes Adobe fonts easier to generate, but Apple fonts are more flexible. Of course, Adobe Type 3 fonts give you as much control as you could ever want, so this may end up being a non-issue. I think that speed issues are a red herring. Apple's code is probably more highly optimized (especially for 68000 class machines) that the current ATM, but Bezier cubics aren't *that* much slower than quadratics (especially if you use something like forward differences), and having fewer control points pretty much balances things out. I think they'll co-exist, on the strength of Adobe's font-production software if nothing else. Apple has a lot of catch-up to do before they can compete with the stuff that Adobe licenses to places like Linotype... -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation -- "Y'know, you can't have, like, a light, without a dark to stick it in... You know what I'm sayin'?" --Arlo Guthrie
egapmh@uncecs.edu (Paul M. Hudy) (04/10/90)
From postnews Tue Apr 10 11:45:56 1990 In article <18000049@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, morris@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > > >The two articles quoted don't contradict each other on the facts, but > >they take different views of the implications. One points out, perhaps > >correctly, that Royal is a technical triumph. From this, the author > >supposes that it will win because it *deserves* to win. > > >The other article points out that Adobe has a large, hairy arm around > >the market's neck. From this, the author supposes that Postscript > >will win because it's *already* won. > > In the April 1990 Macworld they have a very well written analysis of Royal and > its implications. The basic reason behind Royal is dollars and cents. As the > article says, "`Royal fonts will be considerably less expensive than current > PostScript fonts because you won't have any royalties attached to them'". This > fact is quite significant. For if there is one thing that changes everything, it > is money. Yes, Apple has a better technology (quadratic curve definition vs. > cubic which render faster), and the new system will simplify the rats nest of > problems caused by font ID conflicts. But the real reason Royal will succeed > while other great technology has failed is quite simple. Royal makes cents! > By breaking the monopolistic power of Adobe, and providing the font technology > without licencing fees, Apple has certainly executed a coup. Royal fonts will > be cheaper and easier to use. And better. They will work for the same reason Well, I didn't realize that Apple was going to develop, design and give away all their Royal faces for free. ;-) Don't forget that some of the licensing fees come not for the font rendering technology, but for the right to copy the font (owned by the type foundries) using your particular rendering technology. Someone still has to design those fonts, etc. and its a major task *and* very few designers get rich designing just fonts. Of course, we can continue the bad and confusing practice (my feeling) of having, for example, Helvetica followed by another company's copycat design called Swiss, and anothers called Geneva, etc. etc. ad nauseum. As to whether Royal is better technology, I keep reading that, but no one has gone into any details as to why. How is it going to make type face design easier? How is it going to make the designers job easier on the end product? What difference am I going to see when I design a newsletter, poster, or ad for a client? Aside from excerting some price pressure, (not a small consideration, granted, but, I don't think the price of fonts is as "elastic" as some people think it is) no one has fleshed out what these promised advantages are going to do for me as and end-user/designer. As to the price of fonts...I doubt this is going to mean one can buy 50 fonts for $50.00. This is just wishful thinking of the cadre of Mac owners who refuse to let go of their old machines, and want to run Pagemaker, Photoshop, AUX and multifinder on their 128K Macs and are angry at the world because they can't. Most of the big money in this arena is in the mid to high end design shops and the cost of an font is a *very* small part of a an overall design job. Plus, I have already bought my dozen or so Adobe fonts. The cost has already been incurred. There is no apparent (not yet) reason for me to incur the cost again. Now, as to quadratic vs. cubic curves/math. My understanding is that quadratic involves simpler math, but far more points to calculate along the curve, while cubic math is more complex but has fewer points on the curve. I have also read the font designers actually prefer *fewer* points, not more. Has something to do with non-computer, "artsy" criteria like elegance of the curve, etc. But who knows at this point? What difference will that make to me as an end user? Anyway, sorry this is so long and rambling. So far, however, John Warnock's quote from back in September still holds true for me - there is a still a large quantity of mumbo jumbo in all this. Now for my prejudices - I own nearly every product Adobe has published and don't regret it, likewise with Pagemaker, and I have owned 3 Apple machines - Apple II+ to SE/30 and haven't regretted those either. Finally, I would rather return to quill and ink than to rely on getting consistant and competant products from Microsoft. Apple joined forces with the dark side when it entered into that pact with MS.] -Paul Hudy <egapmh@ecsvax> UNC-General Administration
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) (04/11/90)
In article <5366@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: >Hmmm. I thought *all* fonts (Adobe included) would be managed by just dropping >them into the system folder (but I don't really know). However, I don't think >it's fair to lay the blame for font IDs and names at Adobe's door. The >scheme was invented by Appl, after all, and I believe the cryptic naming >conventions are a result of narrow menus, lack of inter-manufacturer >standards, etc. In any case, let's hope everbody's smarter now and will >adhere to a consistent design. (btw, ATM has nothing to do with this >particular hassle; it's just an add-on to overcome the weaknesses of >QuickDraw. Further such appendages from Adobe will clean up the menus >and also allow eidtable paths to be extracted from typefaces. neat.) Right... so, why are some people upset over Apple's move to improve their font technology? We've got a situation where Apple improves their system architechture so we can drop Royal fonts, which is a better and probably more affordable font system, and existing Adobe fonts, all into the system folder. Not only can we use two technologies, but a side effect is that it will break up the monopoly that Adobe seems to hold with their font copyrights, which usually intends to increase selection, and lower prices. That's my point. I guess my original follow-up probably was misguided, but you seemed to flat out reject Royal technology. The way you made it sound, it seemed like you'd rather stick with Adobe and system 6.... ============================================================================== == Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 ========= BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A. ===== == USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu ============ 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725 ======== == BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet ============= Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBS == == GEnie: C.Silverberg ================== America Online: Silverberg ========
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (04/11/90)
In article <11320@wpi.wpi.edu>, macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes: > We've got a situation where Apple improves their > system architechture so we can drop Royal fonts, which is a better and > probably more affordable font system, and existing Adobe fonts, all into > the system folder. Actually, I think someone's been leading you up the garden path a bit, there. The System 7.0 font manager, while supporting TrueType (nee Royal) fonts, does not change the treatment of Adobe fonts one whit. They're still only there for the printer driver, as far as Apple is concerned. A font (including an Apple outline font) can map to a particular PostScript font through the FOND resource just like it can now, but that's it. A System 7.0-compatible version of ATM will be necessary to use Adobe fonts on the screen or with non-PostScript printers. Of course, there's nothing against supplying *both* TrueType and Adobe versions of the same typeface--I suspect that an Apple "Times Roman" clone will map to Adobe "Times-Roman" as far as the LaserWriter driver is concerned, even though there are two completely separate sets of outlines in two separate formats. For at least a while, I think it will be the available base of fonts that will make the difference, and Adobe has an unfashionably big head start :-). And after looking hard at both formats (Adobe's recent book and Apple's preliminary docs from last year's Dev. Conf.), I have to say that as flexible as Apple's format is, I like Adobe's rasterizer better from the point of view of trying to write fonts for it. What would be really, truly cool would be to use Adobe's glyph descriptions with Apple's new meta-glyph (is that a word? it is now...) information. Unfortunately, by all reports the Line Layout Manager will not make it into the first round of System 7, making the point moot for a while. Without the LLM, TrueType won't be of any more practical use than ATM is right now. -- Amanda Walker, InterCon Systems Corporation -- "Y'know, you can't have, like, a light, without a dark to stick it in... You know what I'm sayin'?" --Arlo Guthrie
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (04/11/90)
In article <11320@wpi.wpi.edu) macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Chris Silverberg) writes:
)Right... so, why are some people upset over Apple's move to improve
)their font technology? We've got a situation where Apple improves their
)system architechture so we can drop Royal fonts, which is a better and
)probably more affordable font system, and existing Adobe fonts, all into
)the system folder. Not only can we use two technologies, but a side effect
)is that it will break up the monopoly that Adobe seems to hold with their
)font copyrights, which usually intends to increase selection, and lower
)prices.
)
)That's my point. I guess my original follow-up probably was misguided, but
)you seemed to flat out reject Royal technology. The way you made it sound,
)it seemed like you'd rather stick with Adobe and system 6....
My intention was to make it sound like a question (hence all those
question marks :-) You made several vague statements about Royal
being better, and I just want to know why. In the short term, I will
continue to use existing technology. In the long term, I do *not* want
two imaging technologies on my machine. I'll stick with Adobe because
I have no choice, and with System 6 until 7 is available (and then some).
My goal is to get work done, not watch my suppliers battle it out over
technicalities. I'd much rather see Apple put more effort into System
7. It's late, and they've already pushed off many of its features
into 1992. That's my point.
--
Frank Kolnick,
Basis Computer Systems Inc.
UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frankgelphman@adobe.COM (David Gelphman) (04/13/90)
In article <1990Apr10.154031.10203@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >There are only two fundamental technical differences between TrueType and >Adobe's Type 1, as I see things: > >1. TrueType fonts can contain information in addition to character glyph > descriptions, such as ductility, contextual forms, kerning, and ligatures. > This is mainly of use to the as-yet-nonexistent Line Layout Manager, but > will become more important as time goes on, especially with non-Roman > writing systems. In my view, this is TrueType's biggest win. I consider this type of information to be metric information, not information necessary for rendering the characters themselves. Adobe has always supplied metric information beyond that necessary for rendering the characters, but has kept that information separate from the character descriptions themselves. On the Macintosh, that data is in the FOND resource. Our general distribution format is the Adobe Font Metric file (AFM) which is a human readable, machine parsable format. AFM files contain character metrics, family level font metric data, kerning pairs, and more. There is nothing which precludes addition of more metric information to that data although clearly it isn't very significant until some applications or system software take advantage of it. I'm curious about another point. Adobe has generally made screen bitmap font representations of our fonts available at low cost. Indeed, the whole font library of screen fonts only is available for something like $100 I believe. These screen fonts are also available for downloading from CompuServe in the Adobe forum. One advantage to separating the screen bitmap and font metric data from the outline data is that users have been able to use the fonts and format their documents with these faces without purchasing the outline fonts. This has enabled a new industry, namely people take their formatted documents to their local copy shop and print their documents on a laser printer or (better still) a typesetter. I realize that having separate files for the same font (the Font/DA mover suitcase file and the PostScript language outline font data file) is potentially confusing and slightly less elegant than one file but it does provide this advantage. Do others find this useful? David Gelphman Adobe Systems Incorporated The comments here are my own and do not necessarily correspond to the views of Adobe Systems Incorporated.