peters@sahiways.gov.au (12/19/89)
In article <Dec.8.18.09.58.1989.6188@galaxy.rutgers.edu>, perez@andromeda.rutgers.edu.rutgers.edu (Willie Perez) writes: > Talking about the 90's, PostScript was the 80's! I hate to say it but Steve > Jobs made mistake #1 with his NeXT. It all depends on PostScript. > Apple is working on mathematical descriptions for fonts that no longer require > postscript for high quality printed fonts. This will dramatically enhance > non PostScript printing effectively and lessen the need for a file for each > font size to be installed in the system. Apple has made a deal with Microsoft > so they can license this technology for the PC's. If you notice, Adobe, > creaters of PostScript, have cashed in on this deal and created their own > version of outline (not PS) fonts to compete with Apple's system 7.0. Personally, I find Apple's idea of the so-called "Royal" outline font technology to be rather dead. I love PostScript; all the guys at Adobe (with the exception of the idiot who wrote the initial protection scheme) should be applauded for their excellent work. I know that if I am ever forced (by System software or whatever) to use Royal font stuff, I'll sell up and buy a NeXT! PostScript is not to be considered a printer-based page description language alone ... Display PostScript contains the same basic code kernel, and just has a small device dependent front end to it. I can see Apple will continue to push Royal font technology, mainly due to their pig-headedness. Apple should have switched to Display PostScript aeons ago, relegating QuickDraw to the background for compatibility's sake. Unfortunately for Apple, Adobe's Type Manager came out first. It has some advantages over Royal: 1) it works on all Macs, NOW. We don't have to wait for System 7. 2) it works with 99.9% of the existing PostScript fonts. 3) it works with heaps of non-Apple and non-PostScript printers 4) users have the choice of turning it off when necessary Royal fonts have already contracted terminal cancer, Microsoft deal or no. POSTSCRIPT FOREVER! Geoff Peters
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (01/09/90)
In article <844@sahiways.gov.au>, peters@sahiways.gov.au writes: > I can see Apple will continue to push Royal font technology, mainly due to > their pig-headedness. Apple should have switched to Display PostScript aeons > ago, relegating QuickDraw to the background for compatibility's sake. Well, this would be great given infinite memory and processor power. Running Display PostScript on a 2MB Macintosh SE would be overkill for most purposes. It seems to me that both Apple and Adobe have factored out the most useful (to most people) feature of PostScript and allowed it to stand on its own, which I would argue is even more useful than trying to run DPS on everything. I'd love to see DPS on a Mac (I drool over it every year at MacWorld :-)), but there are very very few universal solutions. > Unfortunately for Apple, Adobe's Type Manager came out first. It has some > advantages over Royal: > 1) it works on all Macs, NOW. We don't have to wait for System 7. > 2) it works with 99.9% of the existing PostScript fonts. > 3) it works with heaps of non-Apple and non-PostScript printers > 4) users have the choice of turning it off when necessary I see Royal and ATM as complementary, not as competitive. Royal has several advantages over ATM already: 1) It is docuemented, NOW. Granted, details may change slightly by the time System 7 hits the streets, but Apple has put their money where their manual is and published the prelminary specs for the font format. We're still waiting for Adobe to platy catch-up on this one. 2) Speed. All the reports from people who have seen the Royal fonts in action are that it is quite amazingly faster than using ATM. 3) Flexibility. Royal allows the specification of higher-level formatting information, such as ligatures, contextual forms, malleable forms, and so on. Very useful for international applications in particular. Adobe spokespeople have said publically that they will make ATM compatible with System 7.0 once it becomes available. Goven that, why not use both of them? ATM for fonts from Adobe, and Royal for fonts from Apple? I mean, just because we have an email connection doesn't mean we've thrown out our FAX machine... Amanda Walker InterCon Systems Corporation --
rcfische@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Raymond C. Fischer) (01/09/90)
In article <844@sahiways.gov.au> peters@sahiways.gov.au writes: >Personally, I find Apple's idea of the so-called "Royal" outline font >technology to be rather dead. I love PostScript; all the guys at Adobe (with >the exception of the idiot who wrote the initial protection scheme) should be >applauded for their excellent work. Yes, from what I've seen, DPS is very nice software, as is ATM, and I would enjoy using it on my Mac. BUT ... >Unfortunately for Apple, Adobe's Type Manager came out first. It has some >advantages over Royal: >1) it works on all Macs, NOW. We don't have to wait for System 7. I can wait. Besides, ATM works only on Macs with enough memory, not quite 'all' of them. Granted, system 7 will probably want heaps o' RAM as well, so neither has the advantage. >2) it works with 99.9% of the existing PostScript fonts. I thought ATM only worked with type I fonts? The other types make up far more than just 0.01% of the available fonts. >3) it works with heaps of non-Apple and non-PostScript printers As will system 7. Besides, I already have an Apple printer. >4) users have the choice of turning it off when necessary >POSTSCRIPT FOREVER! $$$ Forever! This is my major complaint with ATM and DPS. ATM is $60, the laserwriter+ font package is another $110. Other fonts go for $60 to $200. How much will system 7 cost? Don't know, but I bet it's less. And display PostScript is even more expensive. Have you ever noticed the big price difference between Apple's PostScript printers and other non-PostScript printers like the LaserWriter IISC and Next's printer? Yes, DPS is nice, but I'm not willing to pay for it. As much as I like it, I don't see that it is worth the expense. >Geoff Peters Ray Fischer rcfische@polyslo.calpoly.edu
ar4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (01/09/90)
<1693@intercon.com> amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >2) Speed. All the reports from people who have seen the Royal fonts in > action are that it is quite amazingly faster than using ATM. I've seen both and was surprised at the vastly superior performance of System 7. I didn't seem to notice the delay that ATM has when it builds up a reference to a character in the point size to be displayed. >Adobe spokespeople have said publically that they will make ATM compatible >with System 7.0 once it becomes available. Goven that, why not use both >of them? ATM for fonts from Adobe, and Royal for fonts from Apple? Surely everyone who has invested a great deal of money in Adobe fonts will want to use both font types. Sure would be nice if System 7 could display the Adobe fonts. Anyways, nice job Apple! >I mean, just because we have an email connection doesn't mean we've thrown >out our FAX machine... Exactly! +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Piper Keairnes | ar4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | General Consultant | | (317) 495-4273 | Macintosh Enthusiast | Purdue Univ. Computing Center | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) (01/09/90)
PK> Surely everyone who has invested a great deal of money in Adobe
PK> fonts will want to use both font types. Sure would be nice if
PK> System 7 could display the Adobe fonts. Anyways, nice job Apple!
According to some reports that i've heard, System 7 MAY support Adobe fonts.
At least Apple is willing to make the effort at doing that... whether this
becomes a reality with the actual release of system 7, who knows...
--
==============================================================================
(.) (.) | Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 | BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A
u | USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu | 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725
\___/ | BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet | Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBSjtn@zodiac.ADS.COM (John Nelson) (01/09/90)
In article <6523@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) writes: >PK> Surely everyone who has invested a great deal of money in Adobe >PK> fonts will want to use both font types. Sure would be nice if >PK> System 7 could display the Adobe fonts. Anyways, nice job Apple! > >According to some reports that i've heard, System 7 MAY support Adobe fonts. >At least Apple is willing to make the effort at doing that... whether this >becomes a reality with the actual release of system 7, who knows... Even if Apple doesn't support Adobe fonts in system 7, it's clear that some enterprising hacker will write conversion programs to translate Adobe fonts into Royal fonts and vica versa. Possibly even some DEFS to do it in the living operating system. Wonder what the legalities of this are. -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (01/10/90)
/* Written 10:32 am Dec 18, 1989 by peters@sahiways.gov.au in m.cs.uiuc.edu:comp.sys.mac */ > I can see Apple will continue to push Royal font technology, mainly due to > their pig-headedness. Apple should have switched to Display PostScript aeons > ago, relegating QuickDraw to the background for compatibility's sake. Are you on Adobe's payroll? You've got it backwards. Royal exists because of ADOBE's pig-headedness. Apple wanted to enhance fonts on the Mac. Adobe would not release their font-hints methods. So Apple was forced to do its own outline font technology to enhance the macintosh. This forced Adobe to release the hints, and ATM is Adobe's last-ditch effort to avoid getting creamed by their earlier pig-headedness. Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois 1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801 ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillies
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (01/10/90)
In article <8400217@m.cs.uiuc.edu>, gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > Are you on Adobe's payroll? Well, I'm not, although it has some appeal, I admit :-). > You've got it backwards. Royal exists because of ADOBE's > pig-headedness. Apple wanted to enhance fonts on the Mac. Adobe > would not release their font-hints methods. So Apple was forced to do > its own outline font technology to enhance the macintosh. Well, that's what the trade rags have been saying, and it makes a nice simple story. I don't think it is quite so cut and dried, though. Many of the features of Royal simply aren't part of an Adobe font, and many of them are necessary for other efforts that Apple is aiming at--non-Roman fonts in particular. There are some (hopefully) non-political things that you might want to consider as reasons that Apple might not be satisfied with Adobe fonts. Among them are: - Inablitity to easily handle more than 256 glyphs per instantiation of a font. This is a problem for Oriental writing systems in particular. - Writing systems such as Arabic which use glyph deformation instead of spacing for justification. - Information about ligatures, kerning, nonlinear scaling, and contextual forms. - Speed. The quadratic splines that Royal uses, while they may use more control points to describe a curve, are faster to compute (fewer instructions in the inner loop of a scan converter based on forward differences, for example). Since Apple wants things to run on as slow a machine as possible (a Macintosh Plus or SE), this is pretty critical. ATM produces pretty fonts, but it's also pretty slow, even on a Mac II. And a political one that has little to do with Adobe: - Apple has a severe NIH problem. There seems to be a corporate policy of not being willing to pay license fees or royalties to anyone else. Sometimes this is good. Sometimes this is bad. I'd say the jury's still out on which category Royal will fall into. > This forced Adobe to release the hints, and ATM is Adobe's last-ditch > effort to avoid getting creamed by their earlier pig-headedness. Adobe has a few warts, just like any company in the industry, but ATM is not direct competition for Royal fonts. Royal will be built in to System 7, but it is useless with Adobe fonts. ATM bridges the gap, keeping the fonts that people have already bought from becoming obsolete. Not too bad for an INIT. Apple has the hard task: writing a LaserWriter driver that will translate Royal fonts into PostScript. They could always just draw all of the glyphs explicitly, but that would be real slow, since they wouldn't get put into the font cache... Amanda Walker Speaker To PostScript InterCon Systems Corporation --
ching@snap.amd.com (Mike Ching) (01/10/90)
In article <6523@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) writes: >PK> Surely everyone who has invested a great deal of money in Adobe >PK> fonts will want to use both font types. Sure would be nice if >PK> System 7 could display the Adobe fonts. Anyways, nice job Apple! > >According to some reports that i've heard, System 7 MAY support Adobe fonts. >At least Apple is willing to make the effort at doing that... whether this >becomes a reality with the actual release of system 7, who knows... I don't understand this thread. Why won't System 7 display Adobe fonts the same way System 6 does, ie., with bit-mapped screen fonts? Why are people assuming that ATM won't work (or be upgraded to work) with System 7? Why do people equate font technology with Postscript - a page description language? I feel like I must be missing something. mike ching
ar4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (Piper Keairnes) (01/11/90)
<6523@wpi.wpi.edu> macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) writes: >PK> Surely everyone who has invested a great deal of money in Adobe >PK> fonts will want to use both font types. Sure would be nice if >PK> System 7 could display the Adobe fonts. Anyways, nice job Apple! > >According to some reports that i've heard, System 7 MAY support Adobe fonts. >At least Apple is willing to make the effort at doing that... whether this >becomes a reality with the actual release of system 7, who knows... I've heard of hopes and dreams, but I seriously doubt that that will happen. Whether this be true or not, I believe that one primary reason for Apple's intent to use Royal INSTEAD of Postscript is that the licenseing for Postscript costs an enormous amount. Ever wonder why the difference between a plain laser printer and a postscript-compatible printer is rarely less than $1000 ?? Adobe is out to make money on a good product just like everyone else! It would seem as though Apple is going to make a FULL effort to have their Royal technology become a standard or at least very good competition. I have heard that ATM is supposed to become compatible with System 7 and that seems to be the best route to go for those people with a large investment in Adobe typefaces. However, the other competitors in the typeface world will be left a step behind. Perhaps each company will come out with an individual INIT that will allow the display of their fonts on the screen. But to think that Apple will invest a great amount of money to support a respectable amount of the typeface technologies out there is absurd. +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Piper Keairnes | ar4@mentor.cc.purdue.edu | General Consultant | | (317) 495-4273 | Macintosh Enthusiast | Purdue Univ. Computing Center | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
macman@wpi.wpi.edu (Christopher Silverberg) (01/12/90)
MC> I don't understand this thread. Why won't System 7 display Adobe
MC> fonts the same way System 6 does, ie., with bit-mapped screen
MC> fonts? Why are people assuming that ATM won't work (or be upgraded
MC> to work) with System 7? Why do people equate font technology with
MC> Postscript - a page description language? I feel like I must be
MC> missing something.
Sure, System 7 might support the bitmapped screen fonts, but who cares about
those??? The concern is that the system 7 wont support Adobe Type 1 Postscript fonts that will display nicely on the screen and print nicely on a Quickdraw
printer. Some people have quite an investment in those expensive adobe fonts.
Now, according to what Adobe is saying, they will have an ATM that works with
System 7, but hey, if Apple puts Adobe type 1 support in system 7, we all wont
need to go out any bye ATM7 (or the equivalent upgrade)
--
==============================================================================
(.) (.) | Chris Silverberg, WPI Box 719 | BBS Sysop: Main Street U.S.A
u | USENET: macman@wpi.wpi.edu | 2400 baud - (508) 832-7725
\___/ | BITNET: macman@wpi.bitnet | Fido: 322/575 - Second Sight BBS