mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) (10/14/89)
While our user group was given a preview of ATM (Adobe Type Manager) we noticed that type had somewhat irregular spacing between letters in all of the word processors that we tested it with. The same text placed into Pagemaker looked fine. Printed output did reflect the same spacing irregularities as shown on the screen - meaning Pagemaker's output was fine but the word processors kept the erroneous spacing. I guess this effect is caused by the inability of the word processors to process the kerning information? Or was this caused by the fact that we're looking at a pre-release version of ATM? Hopefully our friends at Adobe can clear up this issue or at least inform us as to where the performance of ATM will be limited by the methods used in text display within various programs. Will the various word processors have to be "updated" to correct this? Mel Shear !rex!mgse!fleet!mel
kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (10/15/89)
In article <45@fleet.UUCP> mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) writes:
-While our user group was given a preview of ATM (Adobe Type Manager) we
-noticed that type had somewhat irregular spacing between letters in all
-of the word processors that we tested it with. The same text placed into
-Pagemaker looked fine. Printed output did reflect the same spacing
-irregularities as shown on the screen - meaning Pagemaker's output was
-fine but the word processors kept the erroneous spacing.
-I guess this effect is caused by the inability of the word processors
-to process the kerning information? Or was this caused by the fact that
-we're looking at a pre-release version of ATM?
Actually, it is caused by the word processors' ABILITY to process the kerning
information. Many WPs attempt to out-guess quickdraw. QD doesn't use the
kerning pairs in the FOND. The WP wants to (on Quickdraw devices). So, the
WP resorts to individually placing each character and drawing it with DrawChar.
If the output driver is smarter (say, with a LaserWriter), then you pass the
entire string to DrawString, possibly after modifying SpaceExtra and/or
CharExtra to control the total width. In this case, the driver is free to
re-set the characters any way it likes, so long as the TOTAL width is correct.
If the character widths are not EXACTLY those specified in the Font Width
tables, you will get bad results if you try to set each character individually.
This problem will probably go away with System 7, as that is what the Layout
Manager is for (except for ideosyncratic offerings from the NorthWest).
Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)
the "correct" way to do it, as you can then tweak DrawStringczychi@ethz.UUCP (Gary Czychi) (10/17/89)
If there are problems with certain applications please let us
all know!
I am sure that a lot of those reading comps.sys.mac will
actually buy the ATM so this is of vital interest.
Thanks a lot,
Gary
Gary T. Czychi University of St.Gallen, Switzerland
CZYCHI@CSGHSG52.bitnet (preferred)
CZYCHI@ETHZ.uucp
Tel.: --41 / 71 / 28 30 55bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (10/17/89)
In article <45@fleet.UUCP> mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) writes: >While our user group was given a preview of ATM (Adobe Type Manager) we >noticed that type had somewhat irregular spacing between letters in all >of the word processors that we tested it with. The same text placed into >Pagemaker looked fine. Printed output did reflect the same spacing >irregularities as shown on the screen - meaning Pagemaker's output was >fine but the word processors kept the erroneous spacing. This isn't a problem of ATM, but more a limitation on applications. If you use programs like FullWrite, PageMaker, WriteNow, XPress, MacWrite II 1.1, Word 4 (except on the imagewriter), and a few others that use fractional width spacing (recommended by Apple since the MacPlus first appeared), everything looks great. Older versions of Word, Write, MORE II, etc... don't use fractional widths and rely on a simpler placement of text. If you take a pixel and scale it out 12 times, you could assume that taking it's width and multiplying by 12 would work/look fine - which is basically what QuickDraw scaling does. With ATM (and later with System 7), you get back a more precise font. Part of that precision is that the width isn't just a multiple of a smaller size (i.e. a 12 point m, that was 6 pixel wide before, at 72 points it isn't 36 pixels wide (6 width x 6 enlargement) - it is really 31 pixels wide). The application using non-fractional widths will use the old width information, and you'll get these spacing gaps. Those that use fractional widths will appear correctly. If you would take a sample of a page done on one of your 'problem' word processors and print it out with and without ATM, hold the two pages on top of each other and in front of a light. You'll see that the characters are laid down in the same spots, their widths are physically different because one is the jaggies scaled up and the other is outline, but the application receives width information identical whether ATM is on or off. In this case you'd like the spacing of the jagged text, with the quality of the ATM text. The solution is to use an application that supports and uses fractional widths. Hope this answers your question. ---- On a similar note: to all of those users who have sent me direct mail with questions regarding ATM (and there were more than a few) - thanks for asking and I hoped I answered your questions. I sent out answers to every question I received. If you sent one to me, but never received an answer - my apologies. I sent a few responses to net-land as a whole and the others I tried every way I could, but our mailer kept rejecting some and they never made it. If you still have an open ATM question, send it to me again with some alternate access paths or if the question is of general knowledge, post it here.ATM shipped today, so we can start looking for questions/reactions from the real users of ATM. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) (10/17/89)
In article <1321@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >In article <45@fleet.UUCP> mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) writes: >>While our user group was given a preview of ATM (Adobe Type Manager) we >>noticed that type had somewhat irregular spacing between letters in all >>of the word processors that we tested it with. The same text placed into >>Pagemaker looked fine. Printed output did reflect the same spacing > > This isn't a problem of ATM, but more a limitation on applications. If you >use programs like FullWrite, PageMaker, WriteNow, XPress, MacWrite II 1.1, >Word 4 (except on the imagewriter), and a few others that use fractional >width spacing (recommended by Apple since the MacPlus first appeared), >everything looks great. Older versions of Word, Write, MORE II, etc... don't >use fractional widths and rely on a simpler placement of text. If you take a Brian, I did use several of those supposedly ATM compatible programs such as Write Now, and Word 4.0. It was on these that the irregular spacing was the most noticeable. Word does have a fractional spacing option only when the LaserWriter driver is selected under the Page Setup menu. What about the imagewriter driver? There is no fractional selection for it. Write Now gives you no option to switch fractional spacing on/off and the display of many Adobe fonts to the sreen and printer was less than impressive with those unsightly wide gaps between numerious "character pairs". And even in Word 4.0 with the LaserWriter driver selected and fractional spacing on the display/output was inferior to that of Pagemaker. Perhaps the way these manufactures wrote their spacing algorithms doesn't follow all of Apple rules? I love ATM but this irregular spacing could very well be the fly in the ointment that may spoil the goods for alot of folks. Mel Shear !rex!mgse!fleet!mel
tw@Atherton.COM (Tw Cook) (10/18/89)
In article <2250@ethz.UUCP>, czychi@ethz.UUCP (Gary Czychi) writes: >If there are problems with certain applications please let us >all know! Well, I got my copy yesterday. So far, I haven't run into any problems (but then I didn't have much time last night to try stuff). One interesting note is that the README that comes with it mentions that it doesn't work with Illustrator 1.8, and that 1.9 (which fixes this problem) has already been sent to all registered users. Well, I'm a registered user, and I haven't yet seen 1.9. Has anyone else? The results (on my HP LaserJet+ with MacPrint) do look nice! Tw Cook Atherton Technology -- Sunnyvale, CA tw@atherton.com {hpda|sun|pyramid|decwrl}!athertn!tw
amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (10/18/89)
In article <46@fleet.UUCP>, mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) writes: > And even in Word 4.0 with the LaserWriter driver selected and fractional > spacing on the display/output was inferior to that of Pagemaker. Perhaps > the way these manufactures wrote their spacing algorithms doesn't follow > all of Apple rules? Well, we are talking about Microsoft here... One wonders if they have the same problem under Apple's new font manager. I for one would find that to be greatly amusing :-). > I love ATM but this irregular spacing could very well be the fly in the > ointment that may spoil the goods for alot of folks. Well, I think of it this way: it might be a little uneven, but it's a far cry from scaling a bitmap... -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com> "Tobacco is the only drug in America that will kill you if it's taken as directed." --Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. Surgeon General
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (10/19/89)
In article <46@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes: >Brian, I did use several of those supposedly ATM compatible programs such >as Write Now, and Word 4.0. It was on these that the irregular spacing was >the most noticeable. Word does have a fractional spacing option only when >the LaserWriter driver is selected under the Page Setup menu. What about >the imagewriter driver? There is no fractional selection for it. Write Now >gives you no option to switch fractional spacing on/off and the display >of many Adobe fonts to the sreen and printer was less than impressive with >those unsightly wide gaps between numerious "character pairs". > >And even in Word 4.0 with the LaserWriter driver selected and fractional >spacing on the display/output was inferior to that of Pagemaker. Perhaps >the way these manufactures wrote their spacing algorithms doesn't follow >all of Apple rules? > >I love ATM but this irregular spacing could very well be the fly in the >ointment that may spoil the goods for alot of folks. Mel, WriteNow use of fractional widths is to go into Page Setup and click on the box that says "Use Printer Spacing". Word doesn't use fractional widths when using the Imagewriter driver, using the LaserWriter or LaserWriter SC or GCC PLP driver you can set fractional widths on. I can't comment on why Word does this or why it doesn't look as good as PageMaker - again this seems like an application related issue. With fractional widths on, WriteNow text looks nice (in my opinion). I've always found bugs in Words spacing - like Word 4 can't justify/right justify properly using non-prebuilt sizes (with or without ATM). This would make me personally think Word does something non-standard for spacing at those sizes. Applications like FullWrite, PageMaker, XPress really look great on the screen and printer. My personal opinion is that ATM will kick-start a lot of developers into beefing up their applications now. From what I've heard about Royal fonts and what they'll be doing, current software will have the same spacing problems under System 7. I think those developers that will show spacing problems will work with their users (and Adobe) to find solutions. ATM is in the hands of users who placed orders with Adobe and many dealers so I'd love to hear more experiences in using it with everyones favorite Word Processor (mine's FullWrite :-). MacWrite II 1.1 (available is general release soon) supports fractional widths and they have used ATM to test it. WriteNow needs the above mentioned checkbox selected. Word needs to use a driver other than the Imagewriter, and the page layout applications have their own ways to select fractional widths [see their documentation]. I hope this message doesn't sound too jittery. After our nice little earth quake, things are a little jumpy around here (no pun intended). -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
tw@Atherton.COM (Tw Cook) (10/20/89)
In article <46@fleet.UUCP>, mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) writes: > ... Write Now > gives you no option to switch fractional spacing on/off and the display > of many Adobe fonts to the sreen and printer was less than impressive with > those unsightly wide gaps between numerious "character pairs". Write Now does have the ability to do this; I forget just where (page setup? preferences?). Look for the phrase "use printer spacing", which is what they call it. I haven't tried Word 4 with an Imagewriter, but with my HP LaserJet/MacPrint there is a fractional spacing box in Page Setup. Now that I've had a few days to get used to ATM, I'm extremely pleased with it. The printed results are everything I'd hoped for; and the screen fonts are excellent. I did find that for my use, I needed to up the font cache size from the default 96k. I expect that for more normal word processing work, 96k would work fine, but in Pagemaker, with several fonts in several sizes on one page, using 96k was pretty sluggish. I'm using 256k now, which works fine, but is probably overkill. Tw Cook Atherton Technology -- Sunnyvale, CA tw@atherton.com {hpda|sun|pyramid|decwrl}!athertn!tw
Craig.Kerwien@f347.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Craig Kerwien) (10/22/89)
I have also found ATM to be a bit off with Word 4 and the Deskwriter. Some
fonts appear better that others too - like Avant Garde is off, but Times
and Helvetica look okay. Garamond looks pretty stable too.
Craig.
--
Craig Kerwien via cmhGate - Net 226 fido<=>uucp gateway Col, OH
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!n8emr!cmhgate!107!347!Craig.Kerwien
INET: Craig.Kerwien@f347.n107.z1.FIDONET.ORGbezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/10/89)
In article <28638.2555C8BF@cmhgate.FIDONET.ORG> Adam.Frix@f200.n226.z1.FIDONET.ORG (Adam Frix) writes: >Jeff Harrow asks the very sensible question: >>If ATM uses the bitmapped fonts when they're available, then >>aren't you losing the increased resolution when they print? >It's my understanding that ATM works completely transparently to the >user. The rest of his response was correct, ATM only steps in when needed. >If we're lucky, Brian Bezanson at Adobe will step in here and confirm, >disconfirm, flame, or whatever. I don't know if I'd call it being lucky. I will confirm and not flame :-) -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
dpaight@HP-UX.ucsd.edu (Dan Paight) (11/16/89)
In article <1450@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: > >From what I read in the advertising, ATM is designed to allow you to print >PostScript fonts on printers using the printers full resolution and display >type on the screen at best resolution. If you try this with ATM (and at sizes >where pre-built bitmaps for the device don't exist), ATM will be a noticable >improvement. How that output is spaced is done by the application (and in >some part by the driver). Since XPress allows me to space the type perfectly, >then my guess would be that Word could have a similar feature. > Well, I can't argue with that. Never did. If I understand you correctly, then, you would not advise someone who uses MS Word for final printouts to buy ATM. If, on the other hand, you use one of the dtp programs you mention -- or any program that is capable of correcting for deficiencies in the IW driver -- then ATM is the best thing since sliced bread. Somehow, this doesn't make me feel any better about the advertising people at Adobe (or whomever Adobe contracted with). No matter whose fault it is, the incompatability problems with such popular programs as MS Word ought to be made clear in the small print. dp
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (11/16/89)
In article <2067@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: > ... >Somehow, this doesn't make me feel any better about the advertising >people at Adobe (or whomever Adobe contracted with). No matter whose >fault it is, the incompatability problems with such popular programs >as MS Word ought to be made clear in the small print. What incompatibility? Word's spacing ranges from mediocre at normal type sizes to terrible at larger sizes. Even my clients, who are no where near as fussy about type as I am, notice the poor spacing in my draft manuals. That's why I do my drafts in Word and the final copy in Xpress. Even then, I have to manually kern all the pairs involving apostrophes. (Fortunately, XPress has a built-in kerning editor, so I only have to do this once per typeface.) I really don't think Adobe is obligated to add statements like "we can't compensate for so-and-so's lack of typesetting ability" to their product. -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (11/18/89)
In article <2067@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >Somehow, this doesn't make me feel any better about the advertising >people at Adobe (or whomever Adobe contracted with). No matter whose >fault it is, the incompatability problems with such popular programs >as MS Word ought to be made clear in the small print. "I think it would be more appropriate if the [MS Word] box bore a big red label, warning:" |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| | 1. This product IGNORES user interface guidelines. | | 2. This product IGNORES Apple programming guidelines. | | 3. This product is, in short, a PAIN in the POSTERIOR. | | [4. This product contains LARK'S VOMIT.] | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------| It's a shame MS Word was the only game in town for so long. It stinks. How many new products/features have caused problems with Word, because Microsoft "did it their way"? I think "whose fault it is" matters a great deal. (I admit I might feel differently if I were saddled with MS Word; thankfully, I'm not.) -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/21/89)
In article <2067@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >If I understand you >correctly, then, you would not advise someone who uses MS Word for >final printouts to buy ATM. No, I wouldn't say if you use Word not to buy ATM. Currently there are limit- ations in spacing with Word/ATM/ImageWriter. If you can get the patch, don't mind it, need the larger characters, have the Apple System Bitmaps, have a DeskWriter, etc... Then ATM is a real help. I can't really talk on future versions of ATM, but let me say the future looks very good. User problems mentioned in this article are gone and request for features for future versions are being actively discussed and added. I can't comment on release dates, but send in those reg cards, watch the net and you'll here something when it's available. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
dpaight@HP-UX.ucsd.edu (Dan Paight) (11/21/89)
Brian Bezanson,
> If you can get the patch,...
Now, I remember seeing something about this is past posts. You're
talking about a patch to fix MS Word so it works properly with
fractional widths (or SOMETHING like that)? Who has this patch? I
might be interested if it's something the average computer novice
(me!) can install.
dpbezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/22/89)
In article <2075@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >Now, I remember seeing something about this is past posts. You're >talking about a patch to fix MS Word so it works properly with >fractional widths (or SOMETHING like that)? Who has this patch? I >might be interested if it's something the average computer novice >(me!) can install. Dan (and other who've requested the patch), The current text file was uploaded on CompuServe a few weeks ago. To install it you'll need something like FEdit, MacTools, or the file editor that comes with SUM I/II. If you want something simpler, someone made the patches to word, then used ResEdit to copy out the changed resources. This version is a 'simple' ResEdit paste. That version you'll probably have to get from CompuServe or if someone has it. The text version I'll try to find and post - or if someone else has it handy. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
lito@psuecl.bitnet (11/23/89)
hi, i just got my copy of atm and the plus pack. so far it works as well as i expected. i'm rather disappointed that it doesn't work with cricket graph 1.3 (since that's what i use at work for graphing). i guess i'll just have to clean up the graphs later in macdraw. just one suggestion: after installing atm's 13 fonts and the plus pack's 22 fonts, my system folder is a real mess. maybe a atm preferences folder would be useful. (too bad i can't hide them somewhere else using suitcase II or master juggler, or can i??) now if they would only make inexpensive postscript versions of the hp deskwriters ... -- lito lucena | lito@ecl.psu.edu (InterNet) | Japanese Animation Junkie lito@psuecl.bitnet (BITNET) | Disclaimer: i don't know what 'it wasn't our fault !!!!! Whaaaaaaa ....' | i'm doing, why should they?
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (11/23/89)
>too bad i can't hide them somewhere else using suitcase >II or master juggler, or can i??) You sure can. As long as there's a single suitcase open in the folder, you can stick the outline files in a folder and out of the system folder. I'm using Suitcase II and it work fine. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking] All it takes is one thorn to make you forget the dozens of roses on the bush.
hallett@positron.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) (11/30/89)
In article <2075@network.ucsd.edu> dpaight@weber.UUCP (Dan Paight) writes: >Brian Bezanson, > >> If you can get the patch,... > >Now, I remember seeing something about this is past posts. You're >talking about a patch to fix MS Word so it works properly with >fractional widths (or SOMETHING like that)? Who has this patch? I >might be interested if it's something the average computer novice >(me!) can install. Yeah, now I see what everyone means about Word 4 vs. ATM. Had ATM for a while and was fairly pleased with it, but now, I'm seeing the output of Word 4.0 in conjunction with ATM and it is massively SH*TTY! I would LOOOOOVE to see this patch and don't even care if it is novice-friendly. :^) -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414, Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.com Est natura hominum novitatis avida
hallett@positron.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) (11/30/89)
In article <1473@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >Dan (and other who've requested the patch), > The current text file was uploaded on CompuServe a few weeks ago. To install >it you'll need something like FEdit, MacTools, or the file editor that comes >with SUM I/II. If you want something simpler, someone made the patches to word, >then used ResEdit to copy out the changed resources. This version is a 'simple' >ResEdit paste. That version you'll probably have to get from CompuServe or >if someone has it. The text version I'll try to find and post - or if someone >else has it handy. Brian, If you could please either post it here or mail it to Info-Mac-Request@sumex-aim.stanford.edu (for the Sumex archives) or mail it to me :^) I would greatly appreciate it. ("it" refers to the text file patch instructions). Thanks much. (More great Microsoft designing - I think they oughta pitch that darn "cross-compiler" so their programs work like real Mac programs - yeah, I know it makes good business sense but sure creates some headaches...) -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414, Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.com Est natura hominum novitatis avida
fons@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Paul Fons) (11/30/89)
Here is the patch that was posted a while ago for removing the fractional
widths in Word 4.0... this is extracted from an earlier posting
/* ---------- "ATM/Word 4 patch for Imagewriters." ---------- */
From compuserve, a patch for Word 4 for ATM. Untested, use at your own
risk.
Here's the patch to make MS Word 4.0 use Fractional Widths on an Imagewriter:
* Use FEDIT to open the resource fork of MS Word, or use ResEdit to open the
resource PCOD 0.
* Search for the string 0C6C 0001 370C 6722 302E 0014 4EAC. This string occurs
at about EFDA hex in PCOD 0.
* Change the 6722 to a 4E71.
What does this do? Changing the 6722 (BEQ.S *+22) to 4E71 (NOP) eliminates the
branch in the MS Word code that skips the Fractional Width feature if the
device is an Imagewriter.
Now, choose Commands from the Edit menu, and use the dialog to add the
Fractional Widths command to the File menu. Then check off Fractional Widths.
Ta-Da.
I don't work for Microsoft, and this patch is for your private use at your own
risk.
--
Paul Fons
University of Illinois
Coordinated Science Laboratory
1101 W. Springfield Av.pa@symbas.UUCP (Michal Aase) (01/31/90)
What about the font's that Coda offers for Finale(tm) ? Are they `Bitstream Type 1' fonts ?? - and if not... Will they be supported in the future ???
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (02/01/90)
In article <1689@adobe.UUCP>, gelphman@adobe (David Gelphman) writes: > Today Adobe Systems announced that a new improved version of Adobe Type >Manager is available. It will be made available as an upgrade to the >existing version for current owners of ATM. Version 1.2 allows Bitstream >Type 1 fonts to work with ATM. [ ... ] > Other improvements in version 1.2 include better character spacing >when printing from applications which do not support fractional character >width spacing, bold characters at small point sizes can be more easily >distinguished from plain type, performance is improved at larger point sizes, >and a program for printing banners on the ImageWriter printer is included. Does it also fix the problem of forcing fonts to be downloaded when you save a print job to a PostScript file via cmd-F or cmd-K? Someone had mentioned that a good workaround was to change the file types of the printer font files from LWFN to xWFN, but this breaks TypeAlign, which seems to look for files of that type. It would be best, of course, if Adobe would allow us to put font files in a special folder that is otherwise ignored by the system. Do any of you guys at Adobe know whether this is being considered? -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (02/02/90)
In article <1760@esquire.UUCP>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > Does it also fix the problem of forcing fonts to be downloaded when > you save a print job to a PostScript file via cmd-F or cmd-K? This has nothing to do with ATM. The LaserWriter driver, when sending output to a file, has no idea what fonts are available, and includes the PostScript version (if present) of any font that the document references. What would be more useful than a hack in ATM would be a checkbox (or yet another magic key sequence) in the LW driver that would tell it not to include fonts in the PostScript file. Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation -- Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly upon our own point of view." --Obi-Wan Kenobi in "Return of the Jedi"
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (02/03/90)
In article <1990Feb1.174039.13355@intercon.com>, amanda@mermaid (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <1760@esquire.UUCP>, baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) >writes: >> Does it also fix the problem of forcing fonts to be downloaded when >> you save a print job to a PostScript file via cmd-F or cmd-K? > >This has nothing to do with ATM. The LaserWriter driver, when sending >output to a file, has no idea what fonts are available, and includes >the PostScript version (if present) of any font that the document references. > >What would be more useful than a hack in ATM would be a checkbox (or yet >another magic key sequence) in the LW driver that would tell it not to include >fonts in the PostScript file. True, though the probably is exacerbated by ATM. Since I don't have a LaserWriter at home, I save the PostScript output to a file and upload to our printer at work. Before ATM, I didn't need to keep the printer font files around at all. So because ATM requires the printer font files to be in the System Folder, the Mac printing software "downloads" them unconditionally, and all of my PostScript output files end up around 200K -- even the ones that just use boring old Times and Helvetica. Of course, your solution is the better one, since strictly speaking it's Apple's "fault" that all the fonts are included in the cmd-F output. But Adobe could solve the problem as well if it could be installed to look in a special font folder, rather than only in the System Folder. Given that Apple isn't going to be making any changes to the System any time soon, I thought it would be nice if Adobe would provide this feature, at least as a stop-gap measure. -- Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart, Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you." baumgart@esquire.dpw.com | cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Letterman
rcbaem@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Ernst <pooh> Mulder) (02/05/90)
In article <1990Feb1.174039.13355@intercon.com>, amanda@mermaid (Amanda Walker) writes: >> >>This has nothing to do with ATM. The LaserWriter driver, when sending >>output to a file, has no idea what fonts are available, and includes >>the PostScript version (if present) of any font that the document references. >> >>What would be more useful than a hack in ATM would be a checkbox (or yet >>another magic key sequence) in the LW driver that would tell it not to include >>fonts in the PostScript file. The simple solution is to change the file-types of the font files. The LaserWriter driver checks for font-files using the file-types, ATM checks for font files using their file-names. So if you change the file-type data of the files you don't want to be included, the LaserWriter driver won't find them anymore. Ernst. >
rcbaem@eutrc3.urc.tue.nl (Ernst <pooh> Mulder) (02/05/90)
Regarding my previous article about ATM and how you can fake the
LaserWriter Driver, I first heard this marvellous solution from
Mark Heijligers (rcbamhl@rc3.urc.tue.nl). I'm very sorry not to have mentioned
this.
Ernst.
>