earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) (09/11/89)
The October issue of MacUser contains an ad for Adobe Type Manager, urging you to get a copy from your nearest Adobe Authorized dealer today. The ad features a sample of ImageWriter output containing what looks like Times with caps 4 cm high. The sample looks pretty durn good, and there is a picture of a Mac Plus with the same thing on the screen. Cost is $99, and the package comes with outline versions of Times, Helvetica, and Courier in plain, italic, bold, and bold italic, as well as one style for Symbol. You can also use Adobe Postscript fonts with it, and it works with everything from a Plus up and with all the popular Macintosh printers. It looks like just the thing for ImageWriter LQ users who want WYSWYG text. There are only two things I would worry about. The ad says Adobe Type Manager is compatible with "virtually every major Macintosh application." This implies that there are some applications which have problems with it. The other worry is "What do you do with the package when System 7 outline fonts come out?" I don't have anything to do with Adobe, but if the samples in the ad are real, and the Adobe Type Manager does everything the ad suggests it does, then it looks like a real good buy. We now have Virtual, all kinds of Finder replacements and enhancements, and now outline fonts. If this keeps up we will be able to purchase System 7 functionality from the third party vendors before Apple has it done themselves. Earle R. Horton
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/12/89)
In article <15514@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> earleh@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Earle R. Horton) writes: >There are only two things I would worry about. The ad says Adobe Type >Manager is compatible with "virtually every major Macintosh >application." This implies that there are some applications which have >problems with it. Earle, we do work with 'virtually every major application'. We are testing with system 6.0.2/6.0.3 on the Plus on up, and with all the major applications, and their main versions. So we have Word 1, 3, and 4 and MacWrite 4.5 and II, but not MacWrite 1 or 2. If you expand that to XPress, PageMaker, Excel, etc... you get a list that would take years to test - thus the disclaimer. I currently couldn't name one 'big name' application that we don't work with. > The other worry is "What do you do with the package >when System 7 outline fonts come out?" Since we've stated that Adobe isn't planning to convert any of our fonts to the Apple format... We will have ATM working with 7.0 (and it will work on your two-floppy MacPlus with 1 meg of RAM - I used Word on it and it kept up with my 44 point typing. The only problem with ATM and smooth fonts is that you'll want to do everything in 44 point and up. Hope this info clarifies any questions. ----- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Opinions/Information are my own, but should be correct to the best of my knowledge.
mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) (09/13/89)
Our user group recently had a demo of ATM. It's just fabulous except for very small font sizes. According to a friend who had also seen a demo of Apples 7.0 type system, the small size fonts as displayed on the 13" momnitor were superior to the ATM system by far. I wonder if Adobe is aware of this and will improve the screen output before they release the product. The product version shown to our group was 1.0d48. Wouldn't their hinting techniques also help the small font screen display resolution like it does to LaserWriters? Or perhaps the overhead would tax perhaps the overhead would tax the CPU too much? Mel Shear 504-733-5333
jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) (09/13/89)
In article <1179@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >The only problem with ATM and smooth fonts is that you'll want to do everything >in 44 point and up. Hope this info clarifies any questions. *** This is what BOTHERS ME *** about the ad!! I have very little use for 44 point type. I have very little use for anything bigger than 18 points. I have *a lot * of use for 9 and 10 points, and some for 12 and 14. The ad showed how nifty ATM looked on Brontasaurus-sized fonts, but had no samples at all at say 10 points, which is probably the size I'd use the most. So that's my question. How does ATM do in point sizes 9-12?? It annoys the pants off me that I can't seem to get good output on my ImageWriter in any monospaced font. The ImageWriter seems to know what to do with Geneva in small point sizes, and does a good job with it at the full 144 dpi. But if I need to print a monospaced font -- say to include computer screens -- Courier comes out at 72 dpi and looks like boldface at 10 points. I realize that you will never get a piece of software that can reduce the size of an ImageWriter dot to the size of a LaserWriter dot. But I would hope for a range of fonts that does at least as well as native Geneva in small sizes. -- Jim Rosenberg CIS: 71515,124 decvax!idis! \ WELL: jer allegra! ---- pitt!amanue!jr BIX: jrosenberg uunet!cmcl2!cadre! /
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/15/89)
In article <459@amanue.UUCP> jr@amanue.UUCP (Jim Rosenberg) writes: >In article <1179@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >>The only problem with ATM and smooth fonts is that you'll want to do everything >>in 44 point and up. Hope this info clarifies any questions. > >*** This is what BOTHERS ME *** about the ad!! == Stuff Deleted == >So that's my question. How does ATM do in point sizes 9-12?? The ATM does a very good job at small sizes on non-PostScript devices. The reason large type was used for the ads were probably that it is more impressive at first sight, and most users will have already seen smaller sizes on their screens already. With ATM, you will get a lot better results at smaller sizes than w/o ATM. I don't want to spend gobs of time on this because - seeing is believing. At Seybold, we'll have ImageWriters, H.P Desk Writers, etc... showing what ATM can do. Grab someone, type in some small text and print it. For those not at Seybold, I'm sure MacWeek might say/show something - or wait till it comes out in October. With small sizes (10, 12, 14) you'll still want to use the bitmaps for screen images (ATM will drop in for the printer when needed), they will save you speed (no building needed) and memory (already created). You'll get results at 7 point - 17 point (using your under 18 point scenario) that are better than anything you can get with current quickdraw/systems. ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems
jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) (09/15/89)
A couple of questions:
1. How does ATM work? Is it like an INIT or CDEV. In other words, do
I ever have to be aware that it is really there?
2. If I already have an HP deskwriter w/fonts and am basically pretty
pleased, is there anything that ATM will do for me?
--
Jeff Kantor
US Mail: Dept. of Chemical Engineering
internet: jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu University of Notre Dame
uucp: iuvax!ndmath!ndcheg!jeff Notre Dame, IN 46556 USAric@netcom.UUCP (Richard Bretschneider) (09/15/89)
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) writes: >== Stuff Deleted == >The ATM does a very good job at small sizes on non-PostScript devices. The >reason large type was used for the ads were probably that it is more >impressive at first sight, and most users will have already seen smaller sizes >on their screens already. Does the type quality differ greatly (or at all) between the Imagewriter I and II printers? >With small sizes (10, 12, 14) you'll still want to use the bitmaps for screen >images (ATM will drop in for the printer when needed), they will save you >speed (no building needed) and memory (already created). You'll get results at >7 point - 17 point (using your under 18 point scenario) that are better than >anything you can get with current quickdraw/systems. How long does it take, and when are fonts "built?" -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ric "They're probably foreigners Bretschneider with ways different from our own." These ill considered and poorly constructed ideas are my own, and I love every of them one dearly. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
hallett@pet3.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) (09/15/89)
In article <752@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) writes: >A couple of questions: > >1. How does ATM work? Is it like an INIT or CDEV. In other words, do >I ever have to be aware that it is really there? No, not really. Basically, the ATM installs a piece of PostScript interpreter into the Font Manager. When you attempt to use a font from the Adobe Typeface Library, it reads the Downloadable PostScript version from your System folder and interprets it to get the correct bitmap version, just like your LaserWriter does. It is pretty fast and doesn't do anything for non-Adobe fonts. > >2. If I already have an HP deskwriter w/fonts and am basically pretty >pleased, is there anything that ATM will do for me? > You won't get anything unless you decide that you want to use Adobe fonts. I believe the HP uses Bitstream (I could be wrong, but it doesn't matter) outline fonts, which are not PostScript. Therefore, you cannot use Adobe Fonts as is and get the same quality. The ATM will get you the same quality (for gads more money and gads more variety). The price I refer to is the fonts themselves, not the ATM. -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.com
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/16/89)
In article <752@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) writes: >A couple of questions: > >1. How does ATM work? Is it like an INIT or CDEV. In other words, do >I ever have to be aware that it is really there? ATM is an INIT/cdev along with a file with the driver for your particular machine (ie. 68000 or 68020/030). You drop them in your system folder and reboot. The cdev can set how large the cache is, whether ATM is on/off, and 2 other attributes. With the bitmaps/outlines installed, you can forget about it. >2. If I already have an HP deskwriter w/fonts and am basically pretty >pleased, is there anything that ATM will do for me? If you will only be using the your built in fonts on your deskwriter, and at the sizes they provide/recommend (10,12,14, ???) then maybe not a whole lot. But if you want to use sizes like 33, 37, 99, 127, 500 (in MacWrite II) then ATM will be just what you need. The outlines on the screen will be very smooth, and the output on the printer will be just as good if not better than what H.P. gives you. The reason for this is (correct me if I'm wrong) the H.P. and LaserWriter SC use bitmaps/screen fonts that have 4x sizes in them (like 10,12,14,18,24,36,48,60,72,96). If you choose a 12 point font, they use the 4x bitmap (48) and since they are going from 72 to 300 dpi they scale it appropriately. This will give you a true font resolution of 4x72 or 288 - not 300 dpi. ATM on the other hand looks at the devices resolution say 72 for a screen, 300, 600, 2470 for a printer/film recorder, and produces the raster image at that resolution. Finally, if you ever want to use fonts that didn't come with your H.P., and want fonts from the Adobe type Library (over 500 faces and growing), then you'll want ATM. Hope that answers your questions. ---------- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems >Jeff Kantor
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/16/89)
In article <2369@netcom.UUCP> ric@netcom.UUCP (Richard Bretschneider) writes: >Does the type quality differ greatly (or at all) between the Imagewriter I and >II printers? The quality shouldn't be any different between the ImageWriter I and II. The main changes between the I and II were: II is quieter, faster, more options (AppleTalk, Sheet Feeder, etc...). Unless the print heads were changed, or there are some other differences between the two, your output should be identical. Just compare output now between the two - if they look the same now, ATM will look the same between them, but text will be alot better. >How long does it take, and when are fonts "built?" Time will be depend on your machine (MacPlus vs IIcx), but usually from a fraction of a second to a few seconds for the building. Once the fonts are built, they are stored in the cache. They are built when they are first needed. If the cache becomes full, ATM will pass everything through to quick draw like in the past. At this point, you can decide to change the cache (need to reboot), or maybe cut down the number/sizes of fonts being used. For a rough idea of a semi-worst case scenario, I used a two-floppy MacPlus. My boot disk had System 6.0.2, all the outlines, ATM, and 10 point bitmaps/screen fonts installed. It used the default 96K cache. After booting I had ~700K or RAM available. In the external drive I ran Word 3. I created a document with all four base fonts (Courier, Helvetica, Times, and Symbol). It took about 5-10 seconds to cache each family. After that it never hit the disk, and I could play with all of the different sizes I used (10-127 point) in real time. I banged on the keyboard as fast as I could to see if I could get ahead of ATM - I couldn't. This was a very useful set-up and I didn't run into any problems. Hope this information will give you a feel ATM's speed and quality. Two more thing that I'll add for general information on ATM: it does work with Master- Juggler 1.5 or Suitcase II 1.2.5 to find outlines stored in the folder with the bitmaps - so I keep all my fonts on a SyQuest cartridge drive. Our list of printers that we work with keeps growing. Testing is done with ImageWriter I, II, LQ, II NT, II NTX and H.P. DeskWriter. We also bought the 3 Orange Micro Grappler units and hooked up our SE to an Epson 9-pin FX-86e, Epson 24-pin LX-1010, and an H.P. LaserJet II. They all worked beautifully. I would assume that since the Grapplers just have you use the ImageWriter or LQ ImageWriter drivers, and their box does the rest - that any printer that works like an ImageWriter/LQ ImageWriter with the Grappler, will work fine with ATM. So now I have grabbed the LaserJet II and hooked it up to my machine to give it personal testing - hey no one else was using it ;-). Hope this is informative and I didn't smile too much 8-). ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/16/89)
In article <1205@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >In article <752@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) writes: *** This is to clarify one point *** >>2. If I already have an HP deskwriter w/fonts and am basically pretty >>pleased, is there anything that ATM will do for me? *** Stuff Deleted *** >lot. But if you want to use sizes like 33, 37, 99, 127, 500 (in MacWrite II) >then ATM will be just what you need. The outlines on the screen will be What I wanted to stress here was that with ATM one of the best benefits will be on your screen. All font vendors include only a few sizes of pre-built bitmaps for screen display (usually 10,12,14,18, and 24 point). If you install more (say 36,48,60, and 72) - and then do this for 3 families, you'll end up with a suitcase that is over 1 meg in size - and that doesn't include all of the styles. With ATM, you only install one or two sizes - like 10,12. The rest are calculated by ATM. With the DeskWriter you can use some H.P. or bitstream outlines - so a 33 point will look great on the printer - but how does it look on screen? ATM will make it look great on screen and on the printer - closer to WYSIWYG. ATM advertising is targeted at the non-PostScript printer user - because it gives them fonts at great resolutions on their printers, but everyone, including PostScript users will want it for what it can do on the screen. That newsletter with the title set in 52 point, or your PowerPoint slide presentation need items in the > 30 point range will be estatic. And the 'rest of us' will be able to use 9,11, and 13 point more effectively. Wow, a long clarification. Hope it cleared things up. ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/16/89)
In article <1019@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes: >In article <752@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) writes: >>2. If I already have an HP deskwriter w/fonts and am basically pretty >>pleased, is there anything that ATM will do for me? >You won't get anything unless you decide that you want to use Adobe fonts. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This statement is not correct. On the printer, you might get similar results - for similar fonts, but on the screen is where you'll see the difference. Try getting a 13 point, 44, 99, etc... with the non-Adobe/ATM fonts. You can't unless you make your own with Fontographer, or use FontSizer to make a bitmap for some size. Both take a lot of time and aren't anywhere as flexible. ATM isn't just for printers - it's for any output device. Screen and printer being the most popular, but for all those people using film recorders and dying for PostScript fonts, it's 'the' solution. > Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (09/16/89)
General gripe: All this neat new stuff -- Multifinder (not that new any more), ATM, System 7.0, etc. -- is great. But us people with 1MB Macs are rapidly being disenfranchised. Heck, with the Grappler LQ stuff loaded I can't run HyperCard. Add ATM to the System as well, and I probably won't be able to run a word processor with all the printer stuff loaded. Which means that I may as well not have a printer in the first place. Sigh. The Macintosh mentality seems to be that everyone is rich enough to buy everything needed (68030, 4MB+ RAM, 32-bit color display, ...) to run the Latest and Greatest, and "the rest of us" are pretty well screwed. That isn't what the Mac mentality is *supposed* to be, if Apple's ads are to be believed; it's what it *is*, though. (HINT, HINT, Apple and the rest of you! I STILL think it's ridiculous that I could upgrade an XT-clone with monochrome text display to a 386 with hi-res graphics for $700, but I can't upgrade my Mac SE to a 68030 and hi-res graphics for under $2100!) End of general gripe. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc allbery@NCoast.ORG uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp, 161-7070 BALLBERY (MCI), ALLBERY (Delphi), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) Is that enough addresses for you? no? then: allbery@uunet.UU.NET (c.s.misc)
jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) (09/16/89)
In article <1205@adobe.UUCP>, bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) writes: > In article <752@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) writes: > >A couple of questions: > > > >2. If I already have an HP deskwriter w/fonts and am basically pretty > >pleased, is there anything that ATM will do for me? > > If you will only be using the your built in fonts on your deskwriter, and > at the sizes they provide/recommend (10,12,14, ???) then maybe not a whole > lot. But if you want to use sizes like 33, 37, 99, 127, 500 (in MacWrite II) > then ATM will be just what you need. The outlines on the screen will be > very smooth, and the output on the printer will be just as good if not > better than what H.P. gives you. The reason for this is (correct me if I'm > wrong) the H.P. and LaserWriter SC use bitmaps/screen fonts that have 4x sizes > in them (like 10,12,14,18,24,36,48,60,72,96). If you choose a 12 point font, > they use the 4x bitmap (48) and since they are going from 72 to 300 dpi they > scale it appropriately. This will give you a true font resolution of 4x72 > or 288 - not 300 dpi. ATM on the other hand looks at the devices resolution > say 72 for a screen, 300, 600, 2470 for a printer/film recorder, and > produces the raster image at that resolution. > > [ some stuff deleted here, and above] > Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com > Adobe Systems > Thanks for answering those questions. But there does seem to be some confusion here. THe HP DeskWriter does use outline fonts, not 4x bitmaps. At least this is what the manual says. So once again, does the Adobe Type Manager enhance the functionality of the Deskwriter beyond the use of the extensive Adobe font collections (which, of course, is a very nice enhancement all by itself). BTW, thanks to both HP and Adobe for being on the net and answering queries. Jeff Kantor -- Jeff Kantor US Mail: Dept. of Chemical Engineering internet: jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu University of Notre Dame uucp: iuvax!ndmath!ndcheg!jeff Notre Dame, IN 46556 USA
cca@pur-phy (Charles C. Allen) (09/17/89)
How does ATM do with "standard" sizes on an ImageWriter compared to the 2x bitmapped versions of fonts like Times, Helvetica, Bookman, Palatino, etc. (Adobe and Apple versions)? I've never been pleased with the IW output for those fonts in the 9-12 point size, where a proper 2x bitmapped version usually exists. Am I just being too hard on my poor little IW, or can ATM do better? Charles Allen cca@newton.physics.purdue.edu
han@Apple.COM (Byron Han) (09/18/89)
Sorry if I missed this earlier, but how does ATM handle stylistic variations (bolding, italicizing)? Does ATM intercept the QuickDraw italicizing and bolding algorithms and use the Postscript version? Thanks in advance.
hallett@pet3.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) (09/18/89)
In article <1208@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >In article <1019@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes: >>In article <752@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) writes: >>>2. If I already have an HP deskwriter w/fonts and am basically pretty >>>pleased, is there anything that ATM will do for me? > >>You won't get anything unless you decide that you want to use Adobe fonts. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > >This statement is not correct. On the printer, you might get similar results >- for similar fonts, but on the screen is where you'll see the difference. Try >getting a 13 point, 44, 99, etc... with the non-Adobe/ATM fonts. You can't >unless you make your own with Fontographer, or use FontSizer to make a bitmap >for some size. Both take a lot of time and aren't anywhere as flexible. > >ATM isn't just for printers - it's for any output device. Screen and printer >being the most popular, but for all those people using film recorders and >dying for PostScript fonts, it's 'the' solution. Yeah, I realize it is for any output device. I don't see where your follow up fits in. Basically, we were told by the receptroid at the Adobe booth at MacWorld Expo in Boston, that ATM only clarifies Adobe fonts. Since you work at Adobe, I would think that you would know what is going on, so maybe she was wrong. If ATM will give nice, pretty screen representations for ANY size on ANY font, explain to me then from where it gets the information to compute the outline. Basically, the booth person said that ATM installs a piece of PostScript code that can read the Adobe downloadabe font file, extract the outline information and compute the font size for the user on the fly. Without that font file, no outline information is available so how does ATM compute for non-Adobe fonts? Also, tell me then, if it is 'the' solution, why should people spend $99 dollars to buy ATM rather than wait until System 7.0 release? The booth person said that System 7.0 would not handle Adobe fonts and that ATM would - her reasoning what that Adobe users should use both to access both their current Adobe fonts and future Apple fonts and that non-Adobe font users would not benefit from ATM. -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.com
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/19/89)
In article <1989Sep16.030547.10105@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: >General gripe: > >All this neat new stuff -- Multifinder (not that new any more), ATM, System >7.0, etc. -- is great. But us people with 1MB Macs are rapidly being >disenfranchised. Heck, with the Grappler LQ stuff loaded I can't run >HyperCard. Add ATM to the System as well, and I probably won't be able to run >a word processor with all the printer stuff loaded. Which means that I may as >well not have a printer in the first place. I can't speak for system 7.0 - though everything has said you'll need 2 megs of RAM or better to run, but ATM has been designed from the start to work on a 1 meg MacPlus. The amount of RAM is uses will be around 100K for allowing you to use several fonts/sizes at the same time. This is very small if you take a look at the sizes of the pre-built fonts. You have full control to adjust this cache size up or down. I ran ATM on a 2-floppy MacPlus with an Imagewriter and Word 3.02 last week and had no problems. My document wasn't very large (10 or so pages), but Word is designed to keep only those pages being used in RAM, so theoretically it shouldn't have any problems. Trying to run Applications such as Hypercard, FullWrite, 4D, and others on a virgin 1 meg machine is a big problem - one that the respective authors are dealing with if reports/information I've heard is correct. ATM adds a lot of functionality for (what we hope) a small price. If users really need ATM or the other applications, RAM prices of $89 a meg make it a more realistic alternative to get 2.5 megs of RAM into your machine. I don't want this to sound like I'm saying upgrade. We are doing our best to shrink ATM to fit in a tiny amount of memory, but I want to pass on that the RAM prices are getting lower and lower every week (and I thought I got a great deal last year for $200 a SIMM :-). Hope this helps clarify the situation in regards to ATM. ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/19/89)
In article <767@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu> jeff@ndcheg.cheg.nd.edu (Jeffrey C. Kantor) writes: >Thanks for answering those questions. But there does seem to be some >confusion here. THe HP DeskWriter does use outline fonts, not 4x bitmaps. At >least this is what the manual says. So once again, does the Adobe Type >Manager enhance the functionality of the Deskwriter beyond the use of >the extensive Adobe font collections (which, of course, is a very nice >enhancement all by itself). The Adobe font collection is one of the nice benefits of ATM. In your situation of owning a deskwriter - you do get the outline fonts on the printer (for the fonts they supply), but how about your screen? Have you ever wanted to use 11 or 13 point sizes for body text, but want it legible on the screen and spacing looking more WYSIWYG? Or how about that title at 50 points, or maybe the sign with 80 point type. You can't get these with the bitmaps that HP (or anyone else for that matter) provides. Why? For one it takes time and a lot of disk space to build bitmaps/screenfonts - especially for sizes that users may only use for a few characters - here come ATM to the rescue. If you ever go to a slide/film recorder with your work (proof on your HP), ATM will work great on that output medium too. ATM will affect the millions of Imagewriter users more when they print, because it will give them better results no matter what point size they use - which is radically different from what they get now. People owning the deskwriter won't see a change at the printer if they have similar outline fonts to what ATM supplies - so they'll appreciate the screen changes more. >BTW, thanks to both HP and Adobe for being on the net and answering queries. > >Jeff Kantor Glad We/I could hopefully clear up any questions ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/19/89)
In article <2562@pur-phy> cca@pur-phy (Charles C. Allen) writes: >How does ATM do with "standard" sizes on an ImageWriter compared to >the 2x bitmapped versions of fonts like Times, Helvetica, Bookman, >Palatino, etc. (Adobe and Apple versions)? I've never been pleased >with the IW output for those fonts in the 9-12 point size, where a >proper 2x bitmapped version usually exists. Am I just being too hard >on my poor little IW, or can ATM do better? ATM can do better in any case where the 2x bitmap doesn't exist. For most users who only get 10, 12, 14, 18, and 24 - 12/24 is the only 2x combination. Results on the printer might be the same for 5, 6, 7, and 9 point (for Image- writer users) - but the screen would look bad. Honestly, if all you use is 9 and 12 point (and have 9 point bitmaps), ATM might not be for you - nothing would improve what you can do (except a higher resolution printer). If you want 10, 11, or 13+ size fonts you'll get a huge benefit from ATM. There are some fonts that have larger sizes built for them (I believe Persuasion comes with 36,48,60, and 72 points - and maybe a few more), but these take a lot of disk space and only work in the proper multiples (2x for image, 3x for image LQ, and 4x for Laser SC). Note: The above information on 2x bitmaps only applies to the ImageWriter (or other 9-pin dot matrix printers). There resoultion is 144 dpi, which is exactly double the screen's 72dpi. But on the Laserwriter SC at 300 dpi, 4x fonts (288 dpi) just don't match up as well - and it is visable. The same goes for the Imagewriter LQ and 3x sizes. Conclusion: On your imagewriter, ATM would be an improvement for any cases where a bitmap doesn't exist for the screen size requested and a matching 2x bitmap doesn't exist for printing. The best way to fall in love with it, is to see it. You'll see a lot of announcements when it ships ;-) Hope this information helps. ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/19/89)
Addendum to an earlier ATM question. A few days ago, a technical question was presented that asked about ATM and I mentioned that when the cache became full of outlines, that ATM would just revert to letting QuickDraw take care of it like old times. Well that was last week and this do change quickly in this business. ATM now uses a LRU technique to manage the cache - so it will flush out some outlines to make room for others. So it should never really fail except in cases where you have the cache too small to work with the requested size - say a 64K cache and a 1000 point font, that may cause it to revert to quickdraw. In the latest version I haven't had it fail yet - though 500 point in MacWrite II can waste a few pages (one page per letter) :-) It's hard to give accurate information until the product ships. Since things have already changed during these latter stages of testing, there may be a few more that change in this last month. Hope this fixes any inaccurate information I may have given. ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/19/89)
In article <34819@apple.Apple.COM> han@Apple.COM (Byron Han) writes: >Sorry if I missed this earlier, but how does ATM handle stylistic variations >(bolding, italicizing)? Does ATM intercept the QuickDraw italicizing and >bolding algorithms and use the Postscript version? > >Thanks in advance. Do you want this to get ugly? Well here goes: 1) If the bitmaps for a particular size/style exist - those will be used. 2) If the the above isn't true, ATM will look for the PostScript outlines. So a 50 point bold in Helvetica will look for the HelveticaBold outline and go from there. If the styled outline doesn't exist, then it will look for the roman outline and ATM will do it's own style variations to the base outline. 3) If you don't have outlines available for the font, QuickDraw will be used like normal. Type in other style variations works fine too (underline, shadow, outline). Shadow type at large point sizes gives a great 3-D effect. Hope this answered your question. ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/19/89)
In article <1024@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes: >In article <1208@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >>In article <1019@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes: >>>You won't get anything unless you decide that you want to use Adobe fonts. >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>This statement is not correct. On the printer, you might get similar results >>- for similar fonts, but on the screen is where you'll see the difference. > >Yeah, I realize it is for any output device. I don't see where your >follow up fits in. My follow up was aimed at the 'use Adobe fonts'. It seemed to say that one had to buy Adobe fonts. You are correct in that ATM does work only with Adobe Type 1 fonts, but this means fonts from Adobe/Linotype, and will include our new type manufacturers (CompuGraphic, Varityper, and others). We also provide the 'base 13' faces with ATM with the 'Plus Pack' available for a small cost, most of which ship with the HP and other printers (but under different names). >Also, tell me then, if it is 'the' solution, why should people spend >$99 dollars to buy ATM rather than wait until System 7.0 release? The >booth person said that System 7.0 would not handle Adobe fonts and >that ATM would - her reasoning what that Adobe users should use both >to access both their current Adobe fonts and future Apple fonts and >that non-Adobe font users would not benefit from ATM. Well, System 7.0 is not here now, ATM will ship in October. Nearly all (99%) of the service bureaus and 'desktop' publishers use Adobe fonts of some form - Apple supplies them :-) and those users want Adobe Fonts in all sizes for screen and printer. We've said we won't make any fonts in the Apple format - ATM does the same thing. System 7.0 will require 2+ megs of RAM and the most Mac users (Mac Plus's/1 Megs SEs are the biggest number by far) have to upgrade. User comments here on the nets, on CompuServe, and at MacWorld said they don't want to spend several hundred dollars for more RAM and a hard disk to run 7.0. If ATM fits your needs for better output on the screen and printer, and it retails for $99 and could be running on your machine by Nov. 1, then it is 'the' solution. ATM is aimed at the 2-floppy 1-Meg MacPlus and up, System 7.0 isn't. ---- Brian Bezanson Adobe Systems Incorporated
kaufman@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Marc T. Kaufman) (09/19/89)
In article <1024@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes:
.Also, tell me then, if it is 'the' solution, why should people spend
.$99 dollars to buy ATM rather than wait until System 7.0 release? The
.booth person said that System 7.0 would not handle Adobe fonts and
.that ATM would - her reasoning what that Adobe users should use both
.to access both their current Adobe fonts and future Apple fonts and
.that non-Adobe font users would not benefit from ATM.
How long can you tread water?
If you don't need the features until System 7 time, then wait.
If you need more than a few fonts, then wait until System 7 is released, then
wait for the fonts.
I won't wait for you to finish waiting.
Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Neon.stanford.edu)mel@fleet.UUCP (mel) (09/19/89)
I'd like to make a few comments about ATM (Adobe Type Manager). At our last
user group meeting here in New Orleans (NOMUG), a pre-release of ATM was
demonstrated. Brian Bezanson has been very modest. This product is, putting
it mildly, FANTASTIC. We were using a Sony 21 inch monitor and 500 point type
looked great - no jaggies. EVERYONE at the meeting left with images of smooth
type dancing in their head. Adobe has a winner here!
Yes it locks you to their fonts but they are of the highest quality available.
Other manufacturers will be shipping product that conforms to their specs that
will also work with ATM. If you want to wait 1 year or more for the high
end oriented 7.0 system from Apple fine. I wonder how long after that it'll
be before vendors (and Apple) will have the 500-1000 fonts that will be
working with ATM by that time - maybe never? Won't Apple be dependent on
Adobe and others to supply their fonts in 7.0 quadratic spline format.
If ATM takes off - and it will - then I wonder how fast (or slow) these
vendors will be helping Apple bypass their own technology. And yes, the
latest "rumor" puts system 7.0 about a year away...
P.S. The output from imagewriters is fabulous - How does 144x160 dpi compare
to the screens 72x72 dpi (dots per inch)?
And no I don't work for Adobe.mec@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (michael.e.connick) (09/19/89)
Ok, here's a really obscure question: Will ATM work with non-standard print drivers? In particular, we use an HP DeskJet printer and the MacPrint driver for it. Would ATM work with that setup? MacPrint uses normal QuickDraw fonts in 4X sizes to output at 300 dpi. It also has "special" fonts for representing the HP built-in and cartridge fonts. Obviously I wouldn't expect ATM to provide any support for the HP fonts. ----------------------------------------------------- Michael Connick mec@mtfmi.ATT.COM 201-957-3057 AT&T Bell Labs MT 3F-113 (Dept. 79153)
hallett@positron.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) (09/19/89)
In article <1216@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: > >My follow up was aimed at the 'use Adobe fonts'. It seemed to say that one >had to buy Adobe fonts. You are correct in that ATM does work only >with Adobe Type 1 fonts, but this means fonts from Adobe/Linotype, and >will include our new type manufacturers (CompuGraphic, Varityper, and >others). We also provide the 'base 13' faces with ATM with the 'Plus Pack' >available for a small cost, most of which ship with the HP and other printers >(but under different names). > >Well, System 7.0 is not here now, ATM will ship in October. Nearly all >(99%) of the service bureaus and 'desktop' publishers use Adobe fonts of >some form - Apple supplies them :-) and those users want Adobe Fonts >in all sizes for screen and printer. We've said we won't make any >fonts in the Apple format - ATM does the same thing. System 7.0 will >require 2+ megs of RAM and the most Mac users (Mac Plus's/1 Megs SEs are >the biggest number by far) have to upgrade. User comments here on the nets, on >CompuServe, and at MacWorld said they don't want to spend several hundred >dollars for more RAM and a hard disk to run 7.0. If ATM fits your needs >for better output on the screen and printer, and it retails for $99 >and could be running on your machine by Nov. 1, then it is 'the' solution. > >ATM is aimed at the 2-floppy 1-Meg MacPlus and up, System 7.0 isn't. > Well, I guess then we have reached consensus. ATM does not require Adobe fonts, but will only work with Adobe fonts. It will require less memory than System 7.0 and is basically a smart move for Adobe. With System 7.0 coming along to do nice typefacing, it is good that Adobe has provided a way for the people who have sunk large amounts of $$ into the ATL to still realize the most benefit possible from their investment rather than screwing them (as most companies would do). The product is very slick and compliments to Adobe (and Brian) for sharing it with us. It still looks like the best approach would be for people to use both System 7.0 and ATM. This way they can continue to use their Adobe fonts, now on ANY output device, QuickDraw or PostScript, and still take advantage of the nice output and display which will be offered by other outline font vendors in the future. I wonder about companies like Casady&Greene who sold/sell products like Fluent Fonts. Will they allow "upgrades" to current product owners if they come out with outline versions of their fonts? To quote Chuq Von Rospach a little, "Fixed in System 7.0". f o d d e r -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.com
hallett@positron.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) (09/19/89)
In article <37@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes: >Yes it locks you to their fonts but they are of the highest quality available. >Other manufacturers will be shipping product that conforms to their specs that >will also work with ATM. If you want to wait 1 year or more for the high >end oriented 7.0 system from Apple fine. I wonder how long after that it'll >be before vendors (and Apple) will have the 500-1000 fonts that will be >working with ATM by that time - maybe never? Won't Apple be dependent on >Adobe and others to supply their fonts in 7.0 quadratic spline format. This is all true. However, most people who desire nice typefaces cannot afford Adobe fonts. I personally would buy some Adobe fonts if they were around $100. However, at >=$200 a pop (discount), they are just too much. I would have liked to see the 'Plus Pack' priced around $50. However, Adobe needs to make money from their work, so no big complaints there - I, like many other users, will settle for Times, Helvetica, Symbol and Courier. I don't think it will be long at all before the non-Adobe outline font makers quickly catch up. Since Apple is making the font format openly known, DTP and font oriented vendors will jump on the bandwagon (if they aren't already). Certainly Apple will rely on others to supply their fonts - they always have. I would not be surprised to see the oldies that we know and love - Athena, Cairo, London, San Fransisco, et al - to be delivered with System 7.0 as outlines (they showed a couple already at MacWorld Expo). But then, this is just my $.02 anyway... -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.com
ralph@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) (09/19/89)
In article <37@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes: >demonstrated. Brian Bezanson has been very modest. This product is, putting >it mildly, FANTASTIC. We were using a Sony 21 inch monitor and 500 point type >looked great - no jaggies. EVERYONE at the meeting left with images of smooth >type dancing in their head. Adobe has a winner here! I'm not interested in 500 point type on 21 inch monitors. I don't use 500 point type or 21 inch monitors (not at home, anyway). What I want to know is how well does it work with 11 point type, or 8 point type? Is the size of the cache user-controllable? What is the minimum memory I can get away with using for it? How many fonts can be stored in a cache? How long does it take to generate the fonts on a stock Mac Plus? What happens when the cache is filled? Basically, what the question comes down to is, what kind of tradeoff in terms of memory and speed do I have to make in order to use this on my Mac Plus? The demos sound like great "gee whiz!" stuff, but I want to know how it works in real world situations. For that I think I have to wait until it comes out. Ralph Brandi ralph@lzfme.att.com
mday@cgl.ucsf.edu (Mark Day) (09/20/89)
In response to the question "Why pay money for ATM when system 7.0 will have outline fonts?" Brian Bezanson at Adobe (bezanson@adobe.com) states: > User comments here on the nets, on >CompuServe, and at MacWorld said they don't want to spend several hundred >dollars for more RAM and a hard disk to run 7.0. If ATM fits your needs >for better output on the screen and printer, and it retails for $99 >and could be running on your machine by Nov. 1, then it is 'the' solution. The holes I see in this logic are: 1. RAM prices are low and getting lower. The current cost for going to 2.5 MB is $172, and by the time System 7.0 is out, I'm sure it will be even less. Compare this to $99 for ATM, and $198 for the LaserWriter Plus family of fonts. Even considering a substantial mail order discount, ATM is the more costly solution. 2. The cost for additional "standard" fonts seems too high. As mentioned above, I'm being asked to pay $198 to get outline versions of fonts that I am now using on a daily basis for free. Several hundred dollars may be a reasonable price to add these typeface families to a printer, but Adobe is pushing this technology as a solution for screen display as well. Considering that the street price of a Mac plus is $1300, $300 seems like a lot of money to spend for what is basically system software. I don't mean this post to be a flame of Adobe. I like and user their products. In fact I would prefer that PostScript be adopted as a screen and page imaging standard because I have to work in a multi-vendor environment. Furthermore, I have more confidence in Adobe than Apple to do the font imaging the *right* way. I also have no complaints in paying money today for a product that will likely be superseded by Apple's system software in the future (witness the success of Suitcase and Virtual). My complaint is that Adobe needs to look at the pricing structure of their font families as they move from shared resources (laser printers) to individual resources (my computer screen). They should also consider *all* of the LaserWriter Plus fonts to be the minimum set since realistically that is in fact the minimum included in any PostScript laser printer. Now if Adobe was selling ATM for $99, and it included all of the fonts we are used to using, I would be ordering copies for all of our Macintoshes, instead of trying to rationalize why I deserve one copy for my Mac :-) ---------- Mark Day Dept. of Pharmaceutical Chemistry mday@zeno.mmwb.ucsf.edu University of California, San Francisco ..ucbvax!ucsfcgl!mday
amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (09/20/89)
In article <1024@mrsvr.UUCP>, hallett@pet3.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) writes: > why should people spend > $99 dollars to buy ATM rather than wait until System 7.0 release? 1. six to nine months of extra waiting. 2. a large investment in Adobe fonts (which *won't* automatically be scalable under 7.0). For anyone who has any kind of significant Adobe type library already, the ATM is a steal, and means they don't have to repurchase all their fonts in Apple format. Going from Adobe Version 1 to 2 a while back was bad enough :-)... -- Amanda Walker amanda@intercon.com
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/20/89)
>Yes it locks you to their fonts but they are of the highest quality available.
Actually, it locks you into Type 1 fonts (encrypted, Adobe proprietary).
Rumors abound that Adobe will extend that to Type 3 (Fontographer,
unencrypted) fonts later, too. Anyone with a Type 1 font (Abode licensee or
people like Bitstream who have cracked the encryption) will work with it
too, at least in theory.
And they're right. No offense to Century or any of the other companies, but
I've yet to see a non-ornamental font from someone other than Adobe that I'd
want to use for body face or for my headlines. Special effect faces,
definitely. But for faces where readability counts, I stick with Adobe.
(ITC Garamond is what gets used for OtherRealms. It's dense and readable --
you lose a lot of the flavor at 300dpi at 9.5 points, but it's still as
dense as Times Roman 9pt. and *much* more readable).
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl
Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/20/89)
hallett@positron.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) writes: >To quote Chuq Von Rospach a little, "Fixed in System 7.0". Um, I never said that. I *did* say "Fixed in 4.0" once, but I was young and foolish... -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
tv0c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Edward Van Lenten) (09/20/89)
There is one major problem with ATM that you all keep blowing past, you need the postscript font files to get it to do the screen sizes. This takes disk space and money. I personally don't use any of the "standard" fonts (Times, Helvetica, etc) for my writing. So I would have to go out and buy the postscript fonts for me to be able to use it. Also, in one of Mr. Bezanson's postings he makes the point of saying that the people who run publishing systems already have most the the adobe fonts. That is true, but don't forget that these people also will not be running a stock Mac Plus or SE. If they are serious at what they are doing they with have a II/IIx/IIcx with atleast 4 megs (have you every done large layout with 1 meg). So, yes these people might want the screen fonts that ATM offers, but they will also need the other features of system 7 (remember it is more then just the support for outline fonts). They will need the new Layout Mgr, the enhanced color support (for separations), etc; so they already have the equipment for system 7. Also system 7 is _FREE_ or ~$50 for manuals, what would it cost to get ATM and say 3-4 postscript fonts? All I'm trying to point out is that ATM is not a direct match for System 7, which is what everyone keeps comparing it with. Also to the true power of something like ATM to show it takes more then a stock system, and the starter software. TVL tv0c@andrew.cmu.edu
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/20/89)
In article <668@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> mec@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (michael.e.connick,mt,) writes: >Ok, here's a really obscure question: Will ATM work with non-standard >print drivers? In particular, we use an HP DeskJet printer and the >MacPrint driver for it. Would ATM work with that setup? MacPrint uses >normal QuickDraw fonts in 4X sizes to output at 300 dpi. It also has >"special" fonts for representing the HP built-in and cartridge fonts. >Obviously I wouldn't expect ATM to provide any support for the HP >fonts. Insight Development (developers of MacPrint) is one of our Beta testers for ATM and they report that they've had no problems and they've tested it on every configuration they work with. I've also done some limited play with Grappler's on Expson 9 and 24 pin printers plus the LaserJet II - all work great. Hope that answers your questions. Brian Bezanson Adobe Systems Incorporated
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/20/89)
In article <685@cbnewsj.ATT.COM> ralph@lzfme.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) writes: >In article <37@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes: >>demonstrated. Brian Bezanson has been very modest. This product is, putting >>it mildly, FANTASTIC. We were using a Sony 21 inch monitor and 500 point type >>looked great - no jaggies. EVERYONE at the meeting left with images of smooth >>type dancing in their head. Adobe has a winner here! > >I'm not interested in 500 point type on 21 inch monitors. I don't >use 500 point type or 21 inch monitors (not at home, anyway). What >I want to know is how well does it work with 11 point type, or 8 point >type? It looks just as good as hand tuned bitmaps at those sizes. And when you go to the printer where a bitmap might not exist, it works better. We've got a bunch of MacPlus (1 meg variety) hooked to imagewriter II's running MacWrite II printing out hundreds of pages (with type from 72 point down to 4 point) for passing out as Seybold. The type looks better than anything I've ever seen from an ImageWriter. >Is the size of the cache user-controllable? Yes, from 64K to 8 megs. >What is the minimum memory I can get away with using for it? A one meg plus, with enough RAM for the cache and ATM - exact details not set yet because ATM is still being tested. >How many fonts can be stored in a cache? A rough estimate is 50K per outline, but I've run 4 outlines on a 96K cache on a two-floppy plus w/no hits to the disk after the fonts are first imaged. >How long does it take to generate the fonts on a stock Mac Plus? This depends on how full the cache is and what size you initially want (plus whether you use floppies or a hard drive) - in my two-floppy configuration about 5 seconds a outline, then in realtime use after that - i.e. I couldn't out type it. >What happens when the cache is filled? The cache is LRU, so technically you could get a case of thrashing, but we have yet to see one. If it fills up, something will be purged to make room. >Basically, what the question comes down to is, what kind of tradeoff >in terms of memory and speed do I have to make in order to use this >on my Mac Plus? The current 'readme' notes on ATM say it nees 128K plus the cache size - that might not be an exact number since ATM is still in testing/development. Once the fonts are in the cache I haven't noticed any speed slowdowns. I've used it on the Plus and was surprised at first how I could do real work with 1 meg and two floppies (my first time w/o a Mac II since they came out :-() Hope this information helps. ---- Brian Bezanson Adobe Systems Incorporated
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/20/89)
In article <QZ5dh8m00WB9E9wYUJ@andrew.cmu.edu> tv0c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Edward Van Lenten) writes: >There is one major problem with ATM that you all keep blowing past, you need >the postscript font files to get it to do the screen sizes. This takes disk >space and money. I personally don't use any of the "standard" fonts (Times, >Helvetica, etc) for my writing. So I would have to go out and buy the >postscript fonts for me to be able to use it. ATM comes with 13 PostScript outlines and the rest of the "Plus Pack" are available for $199 (normally $925 if order as packages 1-5 in our type catalog). With System 7.0, you'll still have to buy the Apple/Royal fonts from someone, and I'd assume they may keep the pricing structure initially the same ($145-$400) depending on the number of faces/outlines. I would also guess that the market would dictate price for all fonts - if royal fonts go for $100 for 4 faces, then others may change their prices. As far as size goes, we recommend installing the 10 and 12 point bitmaps (~12K) and then the outlines (~30K each). If you look at the huge bitmaps some vendors provide, a 72 point font can be nearly 100K in size - ATM gives you all sizes for that 42K (12+30 for each face). >Also, in one of Mr. Bezanson's postings he makes the point of saying that the >people who run publishing systems already have most the the adobe fonts. That >is true, but don't forget that these people also will not be running a stock >Mac Plus or SE. If they are serious at what they are doing they with have a >II/IIx/IIcx with atleast 4 megs (have you every done large layout with 1 meg). >So, yes these people might want the screen fonts that ATM offers, but they >will also need the other features of system 7 (remember it is more then just >the support for outline fonts). They will need the new Layout Mgr, the >enhanced color support (for separations), etc; so they already have the >equipment for system 7. Also system 7 is _FREE_ or ~$50 for manuals, what >would it cost to get ATM and say 3-4 postscript fonts? Since we agree that these service bureaus have Adobe fonts, why wouldn't they pay $99 (lower street price) to use all of their type on the screen? Since they may have anywhere from $150 - $25000 in Adobe fonts, $99 seems like a trivial amount for the added functionality. And, Adobe fonts won't be converted to the Apple format. ATM will work with 7.0. I would assume with the Layout Manager in that plan. Current Apple/Usenet rumor has it that System 7.0 is several months behind schedule and will be priced around $200. From my stand point as a programmer, that delay seems reasonable given what they are trying to do, and the price seems reasonable for the disks, documentation, and system value increase. As a user, I also see $99 for ATM as a solution here now (okay 4 weeks :-) as something that will greatly enhance my system. I didn't mean this to shout or pick on anyone - I just want to make sure the facts are stated. ATM will be available next month, 7.0 will not. We have said ATM will work with 7.0. We have also said we won't be converting our fonts to the Apple format (our formats are already in use on the Mac, MS-DOS, VMS, UNIX, and NeXT machines). ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions above are my own and may not reflect those of Adobe.
amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (09/20/89)
In article <QZ5dh8m00WB9E9wYUJ@andrew.cmu.edu>, tv0c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Edward Van Lenten) writes: > There is one major problem with ATM that you all keep blowing past, you need > the postscript font files to get it to do the screen sizes. This takes disk > space and money. True enough. For this reason, Adobe won't get many new customers buying ATM itself. I suspect that this is one of the reasons it is relatively low priced even for special-purpose software. It helps existing customers preserve their investment, and it opens up new markets for Adobe fonts. I've read a lot in the trade rags and on Usenet about how ATM is "competing" with System 7.0. I don't think this is true. It *complements* it very nicely, though. This way, I can use Garamond, or Stone, or Univers just the way I have been and still get nice screen (or Quickdraw printer) output. For $99, I get to use stuff I've already bought more effectively. > I personally don't use any of the "standard" fonts (Times, > Helvetica, etc) for my writing. So I would have to go out and buy the > postscript fonts for me to be able to use it. Yup. Then again, I won't have to go and repurchase fonts I've already paid for. ATM isn't competition for 7.0, and it's not a universal font cure. For those people who want it, though, it's wonderful. I plan on buying the first copy that I can get my hands on... -- Amanda Walker amanda@intercon.com
david@wiley.UUCP (David Hull) (09/20/89)
I have a question. I've heard that Adobe Type Manager (ATM) only comes with outline versions of Times, Helvetica, Courier, and Symbol. What about Palatino, Bookman, Century Schoolbook, Avant Garde, Zapf Chancery, and Zapf Dingbats? If I'm buying ATM just to get a better screen preview for something I'm going to print on a LaserWriter Plus it seems kind of excessive to force me to buy a font that's already built into the printer. I can see Adobe's problem. They don't want to give their fonts away free to all those people who will be using ATM with their ImageWriters. How about a program which pulls a font out of the LaserWriter's ROMs to create a font file? (Is that possible?) -David Hull
jpa@colman.newcastle.ac.uk (John Aspden) (09/20/89)
Amanda Walker says: >Then again, I won't have to go and repurchase fonts I've already paid >for. But isn't that what owners of output devices such as the LaserWriter IIs will have to do - they have already paid for the additional fonts when they bought their printers - they now need to repurchase them as the PlusPack(?) to be able to use them on screen under ATM. --------------------------------------------------------------------- John Aspden ARPA : jpa@newcastle.ac.uk Phone: +44 91 222 8069 UUCP : ...!ukc!newcastle.ac.uk!jpa ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A satisfied customer - we should have him stuffed!" ... Basil Fawlty
pwp@shamash.cdc.com ( HOUFAC) (09/20/89)
In article <QZ5dh8m00WB9E9wYUJ@andrew.cmu.edu> tv0c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Edward Van Lenten) writes: >There is one major problem with ATM that you all keep blowing past, you need >the postscript font files to get it to do the screen sizes. This takes disk >space and money. <lots more deleted...> Tom brings up an interesting question that maybe Brian will answer -- How much disk space is required for ATM? How about for the "Plus" add-on fonts? --Pete Poorman
hallett@positron.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) (09/20/89)
In article <34859@apple.Apple.COM> chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: >hallett@positron.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) writes: > >>To quote Chuq Von Rospach a little, "Fixed in System 7.0". > >Um, I never said that. I *did* say "Fixed in 4.0" once, but I was young and >foolish... Sorry, Chuq. I should have said "paraphrase" rather than "quote". Poor wording on my part. f o d d e r -- Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414 Milwaukee, WI 53201 (414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.com
lloyd@axecore.UUCP (Lloyd Buchanan) (09/21/89)
Brian, you've sold me. One little question though. Did Adobe test ATM with the AppleFax product? Will I be able to fax documents with ANY size fonts and have it look decent? If yes, my hat's off to you folk. ----------------------------------------------------------- Lloyd Buchanan uunet!axecore!lloyd Axe Core Investors lloyd%axecore@uunet.uu.net Axe Castle (914) 333-5226 (phone) Tarrytown, NY 10591 (914) 333-5203 (FAX)
briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (09/21/89)
>My complaint is that Adobe needs to look at the pricing structure of their >font families as they move from shared resources (laser printers) to >individual resources (my computer screen). They should also consider *all* >of the LaserWriter Plus fonts to be the minimum set since realistically that >is in fact the minimum included in any PostScript laser printer. >Now if Adobe was selling ATM for $99, and it included all of the fonts >we are used to using, I would be ordering copies for all of our >Macintoshes, instead of trying to rationalize why I deserve one copy >for my Mac :-) Bingo. Except I wouldn't use the smiley face. $99 for ATM is a great price. $198 for typefaces I already use is too much. Period. -- -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 briand@tekig4.LEN.TEK.COM P.O. Box 500, M/S 39-383 Beaverton, OR 97077 (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/21/89)
In article <5516@wiley.UUCP> david@wiley.UUCP (David Hull) writes: >I have a question. I've heard that Adobe Type Manager (ATM) only comes >with outline versions of Times, Helvetica, Courier, and Symbol. What >about Palatino, Bookman, Century Schoolbook, Avant Garde, Zapf >Chancery, and Zapf Dingbats? We will also have a "Plus Pack" of fonts for $199 that include the rest of the Plus faces. Why do we charge for it? 1) Not all PostScript printers used by Mac people have those faces. This starts with the original LaserWriter, and goes to many of our newer OEMs. We also sell the faces as type packages 1-5 for these other users (normally ~$985 for the five). 2) You bought the original faces from your OEM (I know they licensed them from Adobe), but... 3) Several fixes have been incorporated into the outlines - you won't have these in the ROM versions. Also, the LaserWriter Plus and later Apple printers had missing characters in some of the ISO- latins because of lack of ROM space - the outlines we sell don't have those limitations. I wish we could offer them for a give away price, but they are a product we still sell. Giving them away wouldn't be good for business. Hope that makes the explanation clearer. ---- 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) (09/21/89)
>I'm not interested in 500 point type on 21 inch monitors. I don't >use 500 point type or 21 inch monitors (not at home, anyway). What >I want to know is how well does it work with 11 point type, or 8 point >type? Is the size of the cache user-controllable? What is the >minimum memory I can get away with using for it? How many fonts can >be stored in a cache? How long does it take to generate the fonts >on a stock Mac Plus? What happens when the cache is filled? >Basically, what the question comes down to is, what kind of tradeoff >in terms of memory and speed do I have to make in order to use this >on my Mac Plus? Sorry but we didn't have the Plus version available for the demo. According to the brochure, ATM will work on Pluses but since I did notice a slight slowdown of screen display on a IIX (about 15%), I'd guesstamate the penalty to be higher than that on a Mac Plus. In between type sizes like 11 and 7 etc looked considerably better than the Apple technique of bit map shrinking or expansion BUT a 72 DPI display will not create something that looks like laserwriter quality @ 300 dpi. As for the memory consideration, If I kept it at 64K I found that more than two fonts would start bogging the display down. It must start reading the oulines from the hard drive. The more fonts you use per document the more you'll need to allocate to the font cache to avoid screen display slowdowns. Now all of these comments were based on the pre-release version of ATM. Brian already indicated a change in the cache memory technique. So temper your opinions with that in mind. But from what I've seen I'll be the first on my block to buy a copy of ATM. Mel Shear !rex!mgse!fleet!mel 504-733-5333
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (09/21/89)
Basically, what Adobe is going to have to do to stay on top of the business is to stop being so proprietary with their font formats: otherwise they will fade away. And, according to the morning's New York Times, they will do just that. Actually, I am surprised that laser printer users like Adobe's fonts. They are really not very good looking. Just look at Adobe's own Postscript manuals: their typefaces are so fat that they need a serious diet. And, at 300 d.p.i. they are really really bad. Their outline technology is just too crude to work really well at less than 1200 d.p.i., and even there compromises apparently have been made. The only way to get things REALLY right on a computer is to store the bitmaps, hand adjusted, on a disk. That really doesn't take too much space - all the fonts for a book I am writing take only 3 megabytes including resolutions of 1270 and 300 d.p.i. as well as screen sizes. And I have fine tuned out a few crudities in the 300 and 1270 d.p.i. sizes. Doug McDonald
hallett@pet3.uucp (Jeff Hallett x5163 ) (09/21/89)
Well, I've received quite a bit of followup on my posting about the
Adobe fonts being too expensive. It appears that there are a number
of things I didn't know about the industry that helps me to understand
what is really going on as far as pricing is concerned. In this
light, it makes the Adobe pricing structure look a little more
palatable.
I thought that the "Plus Pak" Adobe will be offering with ATM was to
be $199. Someone mailed to me that the price was $99. Will the real
price please stand up?
--
Jeffrey A. Hallett, PET Software Engineering
GE Medical Systems, W641, PO Box 414
Milwaukee, WI 53201
(414) 548-5163 : EMAIL - hallett@gemed.ge.comvita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. Vita) (09/22/89)
In article <1227@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >In article <5516@wiley.UUCP> david@wiley.UUCP (David Hull) writes: >>I have a question. I've heard that Adobe Type Manager (ATM) only comes >>with outline versions of Times, Helvetica, Courier, and Symbol. What >>about Palatino, Bookman, Century Schoolbook, Avant Garde, Zapf >>Chancery, and Zapf Dingbats? > >We will also have a "Plus Pack" of fonts for $199 that include the rest >of the Plus faces. Why do we charge for it? > 1) Not all PostScript printers used by Mac people have those faces. > This starts with the original LaserWriter, and goes to many of > our newer OEMs. We also sell the faces as type packages 1-5 for > these other users (normally ~$985 for the five). Oh, come now. Almost every LaserWriter in existence that I know of has been upgraded to a Plus. At this point, people expect to have Palatino, Bookman, etc. available *at a minimum*. > 2) You bought the original faces from your OEM (I know they licensed > them from Adobe), but... > 3) Several fixes have been incorporated into the outlines - you won't > have these in the ROM versions. Also, the LaserWriter Plus and > later Apple printers had missing characters in some of the ISO- > latins because of lack of ROM space - the outlines we sell don't > have those limitations. This is a basically a non-issue as far as most Mac users are concerned. It just isn't worth $200 to get a few extra random characters. >I wish we could offer them for a give away price, but they are a product we >still sell. Giving them away wouldn't be good for business. Hope that makes >the explanation clearer. But seriously, what Mac user would want to buy downloadable versions of these fonts? If you are someone with an archaic original LaserWriter, you're much better off spending the money to upgrade the ROMS in your printer, where the fonts won't take up disk space or have to be painfully downloaded when you print. I can't imagine that Adobe is making much money selling these fonts to Mac users. So what does it cost them to essentially give them away with the ATM? I would hope that ATM is more than a cheesy attempt to get people to shell out $200 to be able to use fonts that they already use for free on regular basis. Also, I wish Adobe would stop saying that there are "13 fonts" included with ATM. It almost sounds like Adobe is trying to imply that the whole LaserWriter Plus set is included. Let's get real; it's four (4) fonts, with stylistic variations. Now, I know we can argue about what technically a "font" is, but let's be realistic: to the general public, the concept of a "font" is "Palatino" vs. "Helvetica", not "Times Slanted Bold Oblique" vs. "Times Bold Condensed Rotated" or what-have-you. If Adobe really wants ATM to take off, they should bite the bullet and just include the entire LaserWriter Plus font set. ATM has the potential to be a real breakthrough product; why threaten this by being needlessly stingy with the included fonts? ---- Mark Vita vita@crd.ge.com General Electric CRD ..!uunet!crd.ge.com!vita Schenectady, NY
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/22/89)
>> 3) Several fixes have been incorporated into the outlines - you won't >> have these in the ROM versions. Also, the LaserWriter Plus and >> later Apple printers had missing characters in some of the ISO- >> latins because of lack of ROM space - the outlines we sell don't >> have those limitations. The fixes are nice. I'd rather spend the money on upgrading my LW+ to the latest version of Postscript, though. >But seriously, what Mac user would want to buy downloadable versions >of these fonts? Actually, you can buy those fonts already as downloadable fonts. They're on Adobe's pricelist. Adobe, I'm sure, can go and see what current sales have been to see whether there's really a market for them or not. >Also, I wish Adobe would stop saying that there are "13 fonts" >included with ATM. It almost sounds like Adobe is trying to imply >that the whole LaserWriter Plus set is included. Technically, there are 13 faces. But Adobe isn't really wrong here. The Desktop publishing market does tend to interchange 'font' and 'face' (incorrectly, typographically). I think you're being overly picky here. >If Adobe really wants ATM to take off, they should bite the bullet and >just include the entire LaserWriter Plus font set. ATM has the >potential to be a real breakthrough product; why threaten this by >being needlessly stingy with the included fonts? I think ATM will be a breakthrough product whether or not they do it. I, personally, am going to enjoy using it for the fonts I have (my standard LW fonts and the downloadable ones I've bought). I'll just live without it for the LW+ fonts, though. I have so far, and for the critical stuff I already use the downloadable fonts anyway. It's not worth an extra $150 (ComputerWare estimated price) I'd have to pay to rebuild in the LW+ functionality, especially when what I have is 'good enough' for those fonts already. -- Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.
ralph@cbnewsj.ATT.COM (Ralph Brandi) (09/22/89)
In article <40@fleet.UUCP> mel@.UUCP () writes: >As for the memory consideration, If I kept it at 64K I found that more than two >fonts would start bogging the display down. It must start reading the oulines >from the hard drive. The more fonts you use per document the more you'll need >to allocate to the font cache to avoid screen display slowdowns. I rarely use more than two or three fonts per document anyway, so that doesn't sound too bad. >Now all of these comments were based on the pre-release version of ATM. Brian >already indicated a change in the cache memory technique. So temper your >opinions with that in mind. But from what I've seen I'll be the first on my >block to buy a copy of ATM. I think I may be the second on my block--I'm definitely interested, but I'd still like to try it on the first guy's machine to see how it performs.... -- Ralph Brandi ralph@lzfme.att.com att!lzfme!ralph Work flows toward the competent until they are submerged.
fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) (09/22/89)
In article <2463@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. Vita) writes: > > But seriously, what Mac user would want to buy downloadable versions > of these fonts? If you are someone with an archaic original > LaserWriter, you're much better off spending the money to upgrade the > ROMS in your printer, where the fonts won't take up disk space or have > to be painfully downloaded when you print. Me. Note that I don't have any sort of laser printer. But ATM/PlusPak looks real useful for someone using a DeskWriter. Not everyone can afford even a tired old LaserWriter... > I would hope that ATM is more than a cheesy attempt to get people to > shell out $200 to be able to use fonts that they already use for free > on regular basis. On the other hand, it's a pretty good deal for someone like me. I haven't been able to use any of the other nice LaserWriter fonts, for free or otherwise, unless I haul a disk over to someone who will print my files on theirs. ------------ "...I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization." - Petronius Arbiter, 210 B.C.
chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) (09/22/89)
>Me. Note that I don't have any sort of laser printer.
Good point. A lot of the flaming has been from the "I own a laserwriter
already" world. For Adobe, I'll bet this is a trivial part of their hopeful
market share. All those non-postscript, dot-matrix printers are where ATM is
*really* going to shine. The number of us going to spend the money to make
our screens look nicer is nothing compared to the dot-matrix folks who are
finally going to get real, decent looking output.
--
Chuq Von Rospach <+> Editor,OtherRealms <+> Member SFWA/ASFA
chuq@apple.com <+> CI$: 73317,635 <+> [This is myself speaking. I am not Appl
Segmentation Fault. Core dumped.mday@cgl.ucsf.edu (Mark Day) (09/22/89)
In article <1227@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: > >We will also have a "Plus Pack" of fonts for $199 that include the rest >of the Plus faces. Why do we charge for it? [various explanations deleted for space condsiderations] >I wish we could offer them for a give away price, but they are a product we >still sell. Giving them away wouldn't be good for business. Hope that makes ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the explanation clearer. I think that including the full LaserWriter Plus typefaces *would* be good for business. I know that we would buy lots of copies if it would cost us $99 per workstation instead of $298. Our users our used to using the full set of fonts stored in the LW Plus. They don't understand the largely historical distinction between the font sets in the LaserWriter classic and the LW Plus, and they are not going to embrace any product that only enhances their use of Times and Helvetica. If Adobe really wants ATM to become a de facto standard in the Macintosh workplace, they should bite the bullet, and include all of the fonts that everyone is used to using. I can't believe that we are the only installation that would like to improve their font imaging, but not at a cost of $300 per worker. ---------- Mark Day Dept. of Pharmaceutical Chemistry mday@zeno.mmwb.ucsf.edu University of California, San Francisco ..ucbvax!ucsfcgl!mday
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (09/22/89)
In article <125093@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes: >In article <2463@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. Vita) writes: >> >> But seriously, what Mac user would want to buy downloadable versions >> of these fonts? > >Me. Note that I don't have any sort of laser printer. But ATM/PlusPak >looks real useful for someone using a DeskWriter. Actually, these fonts ought to be usable with a LaserWriter SC, shouldn't they? It's cheaper to buy an SC and ATM/PlusPak than it is to buy an NT.... +----------------------------------+------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | | University of Wisconsin--Madison | | +----------------------------------+------------------+ "You are in a twisty little maze of Unix versions, all different."
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/22/89)
In article <14052@shamash.cdc.com> pwp@shamash.UUCP (Pete Poorman - HOUFAC) writes: >Tom brings up an interesting question that maybe Brian will answer -- >How much disk space is required for ATM? How about for the "Plus" add-on >fonts? The outlines and bitmaps provided with ATM take up 488K. The plus pack with outlines and bitmaps take up another 1.15 megs. The standard 35 fonts will take up a combined total of ~1.6 megs. This is for 10, 12 point bitmaps for each style (plain, bold, italic, bolditalic) and the outline for each style. You could just use the roman and have ATM interpolate the other styles (though your output may not be as good as using the appropriate outline). ATM itself is two files. The INIT is 7K and the drivers about 95K. Hope that answers your questions. -- ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/22/89)
In article <1045@mrsvr.UUCP> hallett@gemed.ge.com (Jeffrey A. Hallett (414) 548-5163) writes: >I thought that the "Plus Pak" Adobe will be offering with ATM was to >be $199. Someone mailed to me that the price was $99. Will the real >price please stand up? $199 is standing taller than $99 - sorry. The ATM "Plus Pack" will retail for $199, but I'm hoping that some Christmas sales by your favorite dealer will help the price. -- ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/22/89)
In article <2463@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: >> 1) Not all PostScript printers used by Mac people have those faces. >> This starts with the original LaserWriter, and goes to many of >> our newer OEMs. We also sell the faces as type packages 1-5 for >> these other users (normally ~$985 for the five). > >Oh, come now. Almost every LaserWriter in existence that I know of >has been upgraded to a Plus. At this point, people expect to have >Palatino, Bookman, etc. available *at a minimum*. First, there are a lot of original Apple printers that haven't been upgraded. Secondly, LinoTronics, Varitypers, ImageWriters, and any other QuickDraw printer that will use ATM doesn't come with those fonts. We'd have to get every LaserWriter plus owner to somehow send us an Apple registration card and receipt to show us that they have the fonts in ROM. >This is a basically a non-issue as far as most Mac users are >concerned. It just isn't worth $200 to get a few extra random >characters. The market (and response from that market - our customers) has been tremendous. The two millions plus owners of ImageWriters can now get great fonts, that look great for a small investment. Most people we talk to at Seybold think $100 for ATM is a steal and the extra $200 for the "Plus Pack" is worth it for the benefits they get. >Also, I wish Adobe would stop saying that there are "13 fonts" >included with ATM. It almost sounds like Adobe is trying to imply >that the whole LaserWriter Plus set is included. Let's get real; it's >four (4) fonts, with stylistic variations. Now, I know we can argue >about what technically a "font" is, but let's be realistic: to the >general public, the concept of a "font" is "Palatino" vs. >"Helvetica", not "Times Slanted Bold Oblique" vs. "Times Bold >Condensed Rotated" or what-have-you. We are using the correct definition of a font. Each one is a true font, coming with a bitmap and outline. The variations of fonts (like roman, bold, italic, bolditalic) together make a font family. If you look at any of Adobe's, Linotype's, or BitStream's catalogs, you'll see they use this same 'font' definition. Apple's sales literature for the LaserWriter mentioned it coming with 13 fonts - the NTX brochures talk about the 35 resident fonts. I'm sorry you don't like that Adobe isn't giving away the "Plus Pack", but with more future ATM customers being users of non-PostScript printers w/o these fonts it just wouldn't make good business sense. -- ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (09/22/89)
In article <110300005@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > >Basically, what Adobe is going to have to do to stay on top of >the business is to stop being so proprietary with their font formats: >otherwise they will fade away. And, according to the morning's >New York Times, they will do just that. I'd be really surprised if that happened. What percentage of the font market in the U.S. does Adobe have? I'm not sure, but it's awfully high--I've done proofreading for three summers at various places, and a good 80-90% of the fonts used are Adobe's. >Actually, I am surprised that laser printer users like Adobe's fonts. >They are really not very good looking. Really? Which of their 100+ fonts? I've found nobody yet who prefers, say, Bitstream fonts to Adobe's. These fonts have evolved over a long period of time--for some of them, hundreds of years--and been carefully hand-tuned. >The only way to get things REALLY right on a computer is to store the >bitmaps, hand adjusted, on a disk. That really doesn't take too >much space [ ... ] Depends how many fonts you're using. A 12-point font and kerning table (which should be stored separately for different sizes if you're hand-tuning the bitmap) runs about 1 MB at 1200 dpi. The font alone runs about 1/2 MB. Multiply this by, say, 4 style variations and 5 fonts...I don't have that much space to waste. Anton P.S. Take a look at some books and magazines sometime, and count how many of them use Adobe fonts. It's awfully high. +----------------------------------+------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | | University of Wisconsin--Madison | | +----------------------------------+------------------+ "You are in a twisty little maze of Unix versions, all different."
amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (09/22/89)
In article <110300005@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu>, mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: > Actually, I am surprised that laser printer users like Adobe's fonts. In my opinion, they are the best available, although Bitstream's Fontware comes close for non-PostScript printers (and ATM sounds like it'll even fix that, if you're using a Mac). > They are really not very good looking. Just look at Adobe's own > Postscript manuals: their typefaces are so fat that they need a serious > diet. This is a matter of taste, not quality. Adobe's PostScript typefaces are very faithful renditions of the fonts. The fact that you may not like Times Roman or Stone Serif for body text is an issue of book design, not of how "good" the fonts themselves are. > And, at 300 d.p.i. they are really really bad. Their > outline technology is just too crude to work really well at less than > 1200 d.p.i., and even there compromises apparently have been made. Of course. *Nothing* looks great at 300 dpi, and anything that is light enough to use as a text face is going to look heavier on a laser printer than on a typesetter. Once again, though, this isn't a question of font quality. > The only way to get things REALLY right on a computer is to store the > bitmaps, hand adjusted, on a disk. That really doesn't take too > much space - all the fonts for a book I am writing take only > 3 megabytes including resolutions of 1270 and 300 d.p.i. as well > as screen sizes. This is a very traditional attitude. I am skeptical, though. Even Computer Modern, which is often held up as the "right way", isn't hand-tuned any more than Adobe's fonts are. I'd be very interested in what actual fonts you are using... -- Amanda Walker amanda@intercon.com
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/23/89)
In article <RANG.89Sep21205529@derby.cs.wisc.edu> rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) writes: << Previous commenst on whether to but the "Plus Pack" of outline fonts >> >Actually, these fonts ought to be usable with a LaserWriter SC, >shouldn't they? It's cheaper to buy an SC and ATM/PlusPak than it is >to buy an NT.... ATM works great on a LaserWriter SC. I'm thinking of one for home use that I can then later upgrade to an NT (I still want graphics/gray scale). My only wish if for some form of Spooler for the SC. 7.0 will provide one, but that is a ways away. -- ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (Mark F. Vita) (09/23/89)
In article <1234@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >In article <2463@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita) writes: >>Oh, come now. Almost every LaserWriter in existence that I know of >>has been upgraded to a Plus. At this point, people expect to have >>Palatino, Bookman, etc. available *at a minimum*. > >First, there are a lot of original Apple printers that haven't been upgraded. >Secondly, LinoTronics, Varitypers, ImageWriters, and any other QuickDraw I maintain that there are actually *very few* classic LaserWriters left around, relative to the number of LW+'s (not to mention NTs and NTXs). It's in about the same category as the 128K Mac. And as I said, for those few people who do have classic LaserWriters, it makes much more sense for them to upgrade the LaserWriter and have the fonts (and new Postscript interpreter) in ROM than to spend $200 for each and every Mac that wants to use the new fonts. >printer that will use ATM doesn't come with those fonts. We'd have to get >every LaserWriter plus owner to somehow send us an Apple registration card >and receipt to show us that they have the fonts in ROM. Why? You're not requiring people to send you an Apple registration card to prove that they have Times, Helvetica, Courier and Symbol. These are copyrighted Adobe fonts, are they not? >>This is a basically a non-issue as far as most Mac users are >>concerned. It just isn't worth $200 to get a few extra random >>characters. > >The market (and response from that market - our customers) has been >tremendous. The two millions plus owners of ImageWriters can now get great >fonts, that look great for a small investment. Most people we talk to at >Seybold think $100 for ATM is a steal and the extra $200 for the "Plus >Pack" is worth it for the benefits they get. I don't see how your response has anything to do with the point I was making. You said that even for LaserWriter Plus owners, there is incentive to pay $200 for the new Adobe fonts since they contain characters that were omitted from the LW+ ROMS for space reasons. I'm saying, hogwash; the benefit of having a few extra obscure characters is not even remotely worth the $200, the required disk space, or the hassle of having to download the fonts all the time. As for your point about ImageWriter owners, I don't think that the $300 necessary to get a standard LaserWriter-equivalent set of fonts is a "small investment", especially considering that ImageWriter itself only costs about $500. And remember that the type of people attending a Seybold conference in no way represents an accurate cross-section of Mac users. Most of the people at such conferences represent Deep Pockets for whom $300 is small change, and who are used to getting gouged by type vendors anyway. >>Also, I wish Adobe would stop saying that there are "13 fonts" >>included with ATM. It almost sounds like Adobe is trying to imply >>that the whole LaserWriter Plus set is included. Let's get real; it's >>four (4) fonts, with stylistic variations. Now, I know we can argue >>about what technically a "font" is, but let's be realistic: to the >>general public, the concept of a "font" is "Palatino" vs. >>"Helvetica", not "Times Slanted Bold Oblique" vs. "Times Bold >>Condensed Rotated" or what-have-you. > >We are using the correct definition of a font. Each one is a true font, >coming with a bitmap and outline. The variations of fonts (like roman, >bold, italic, bolditalic) together make a font family. If you look at any of >Adobe's, Linotype's, or BitStream's catalogs, you'll see they use this same >'font' definition. Apple's sales literature for the LaserWriter mentioned it >coming with 13 fonts - the NTX brochures talk about the 35 resident fonts. *Sigh*. I really didn't want to get into an argument about the definition of the word "font", but here goes. My claim is that to everyone except typography weenies and marketing bozos, a "font" means what you Adobe types are referring to when you say "font family". Picture the following scenario. You walk up to a guy who is editing a document in Helvetica, lean over his shoulder, and say "Please change the font." So he goes up to the Style menu and picks "Italic". What would you do? Probably give the guy a noogie, right? "No, you idiot, I said change the *FONT*." And what if he turned to you and said, "Well, technically, you know, I did, in fact, change the font." Probably another noogie, right? I think you see my point. Yes, I realize that there are other vendors (Apple, Bitstream) who are guilty of this same sort of deception. I guess marketing types are the same everywhere (i.e. larger numbers look better in advertising copy than smaller numbers). This is the same reason you see 10-speed blenders where one of the speeds is "OFF". >I'm sorry you don't like that Adobe isn't giving away the "Plus Pack", but >with more future ATM customers being users of non-PostScript printers w/o >these fonts it just wouldn't make good business sense. On the contrary, it makes great business sense, since otherwise it raises the cost of ATM for people like myself to $300. By "people like myself", I mean people who use (non-archaic) LaserWriters at work/school, but have ImageWriters at home, and would like very much to have the same font set in both places. At $99, it's a great deal; at $300, it's just too bloody much money. Don't get me wrong, I think ATM is a nifty piece of software. It's just that for what I would get for $99, it's almost useless. I use Times a fair amount, Helvetica rarely, and Courier and Symbol almost never. So for $99 I might get better looking Times output on my screen/ImageWriter. I can do almost as well by getting the free Adobe screen font version of Times. True, ATM would also give me the privilege of using fonts I might purchase from the Adobe Type Library, but at Adobe's prices, I don't think I'll be buying many of these for home use any time soon. It comes down this: if I got the LaserWriter Plus font set with ATM, I'd buy it. If not, I probably won't; I can just suffer until Apple's (free) outline font capabilities come along. And I bet there are a LOT of other Mac users who will make a similar decisin. ---- Mark Vita vita@crd.ge.com General Electric CRD ..!uunet!crd.ge.com!vita Schenectady, NY
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (09/23/89)
In article <110300005@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu> mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu writes: >Actually, I am surprised that laser printer users like Adobe's fonts. Your comment surpises me. Adobe's fonts are the largest sellers and highest rated by the top typeographers in the world. >Their outline technology is just too crude to work really well at less than >1200 d.p.i., and even there compromises apparently have been made. It seems that you may have Adobe and some other type manufacturer reversed. Everybody has wanted the Adobe hinting technology that makes our fonts look consistant across various resolutions. BitStream's fonts are only advertised for >1200 dpi because they lack these hints. One of the recent issues of Publish something magazine compared hinted and non-hinted fonts and let the eyes be the judge - guess which looked better. And our outline technology is the same outline technology everyone uses - Bezier curves. The hinting is added to improve the look at lower resolution. >The only way to get things REALLY right on a computer is to store the >bitmaps, hand adjusted, on a disk. That really doesn't take too >much space - all the fonts for a book I am writing take only >3 megabytes including resolutions of 1270 and 300 d.p.i. as well >as screen sizes. >And I have fine tuned out a few crudities in the 300 and 1270 d.p.i. >sizes. (Personal Mini-Flame On) This 'flame' of yours on Adobe seems like you don't know what you're talking about. Bitmaps are used (assuming PostScript fonts here since that is what you're complaining about) for screen layout. Hand tuned Bitmaps are the best way to get accurate screen placement. But a 72 dpi (Screen resolution) Times bitmap at 72 point takes up 105K of space. If you want 10,12,14,18,24,36, 48,60, & 72 point bitmaps then you'll have a 300+K set of bitmaps for just one face. If you add bold, italic, bold-italic - then were at 1200K. Now lets add that for a books you'll use a serif font for body text, a sans-serif for titles, page numbers, and a third Titling font for other effects. This comes to 3600K w/o the PostScript outlines (12 faces x 30K = 360K). With ATM you need the outlines (360K) plus 10,12 bitmaps for 12 faces (using above example - 12K per face) for a grand total of 474K - and you get near hand- tuned quality at any size. Remember, all of my bitmap calculations are for a 72 dpi bitmap. If you really used bitmaps for 300 and 1270 dpi then you'd need ~4X and 18X bitmaps (a "tad" over 3 megs). From your talk above it doesn't sound like you're using PostScript Type 1 fonts. The only PostScript fonts you can edit are Type 3, but you're saying you have one outline for 300 dpi and another for 1270. The whole idea behind PostScript is device independance - resolution doesn't matter because they are all mathematical calculations. (Personal Mini-Flame Off) Some last second questions: What fonts are you having problems with? What fonts don't you like? What/whose printer are you printing too? -- ---- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
daw@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (David Wolverton) (09/23/89)
In article <34930@apple.Apple.COM>, chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) writes: > Good point. A lot of the flaming has been from the "I own a laserwriter > already" world. For Adobe, I'll bet this is a trivial part of their hopeful > market share. All those non-postscript, dot-matrix printers are where ATM is > *really* going to shine. The number of us going to spend the money to make > our screens look nicer is nothing compared to the dot-matrix folks who are > finally going to get real, decent looking output. Subsitute "laser" for "dot-matrix" in Chuq's statement, and then consider how many folks might consider buying ATM+Plus Pack as an alternative to a PostScript laser printer. This product expands Adobe's potential market for downloadable fonts tremendously. But I also agree with the Net sentiment that $199 is too much for the Plus Pack. Dave Wolverton daw@attunix.att.com
gak@apple.com (Greg Kimberly) (09/23/89)
In article <1234@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) writes: > We are using the correct definition of a font. Each one is a true font, > coming with a bitmap and outline. The variations of fonts (like roman, > bold, italic, bolditalic) together make a font family. If you look at any of > Adobe's, Linotype's, or BitStream's catalogs, you'll see they use this same > 'font' definition. Apple's sales literature for the LaserWriter mentioned it > coming with 13 fonts - the NTX brochures talk about the 35 resident fonts. Add me to the people that were fooled by the "13 fonts" bit. Most people obviously think of a "font" being equivalent to "font family". Ads that use the word to mean "font or font style" are a bad idea because they leave the customer disappointed. (And the deception is obvious before the poor unfortunate buys the product, so it is immediate bad business, too.) It isn't anything that would stop me from buying ATM, (the $300/ for some period price may do that) but it certainly doesn't help. -Opinions expressed are my own, or maybe somebody else's, but probably not Apple's-
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/23/89)
In article <1236@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >ATM works great on a LaserWriter SC. I'm thinking of one for home use that >I can then later upgrade to an NT (I still want graphics/gray scale). My >only wish if for some form of Spooler for the SC. 7.0 will provide one, but >that is a ways away. Hey, Brian, if you are waiting for 7.0 until you get that SC then forget that $300 ATM investment. With the Apple outline fonts, you won't need ATM. :) ---- Stephen Kurtzman | "You might be the largest Elizabeth, but kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu | Elizabeth is still a good name to have if | you're a girl." -- the Roches
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (09/24/89)
In <2485@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> desdemona!vita@steinmetz.UUCP (Mark F. Vita): > I maintain that there are actually *very few* classic LaserWriters > left around, relative to the number of LW+'s (not to mention NTs and > NTXs). It's in about the same category as the 128K Mac. I know not of the whole world, but I will supply a data point from my own experience. We have 3 LaserWriters, 1 LaserWriter-Plus, and 1 LaserWriter-IINT. As far as Macintosh CPUs go, we have (the counts may be off a little bit, and I'm including 3 IIcx's that are currently on order) 12 Plusses and 4 II's, plus another 4 or 5 Plusses that people have at home. I know of 1 512 (which I believe actually started off life as a 128) which is currently used only by one faculty member's 3-year old son. So, based on that very limited sample, I would say that 128s are essentially obsolete but that LW classics are still very much useful machines. -- Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016 {att,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy -or- roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu "The connector is the network"
john@trigraph.uucp (John Chew) (09/25/89)
In <1236@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >ATM works great on a LaserWriter SC. I'm thinking of one for home use that >I can then later upgrade to an NT (I still want graphics/gray scale). My >only wish if for some form of Spooler for the SC. 7.0 will provide one, but >that is a ways away. 6.0 provides spooling for LaserWriter II SCs already. I don't recall reading about it in any Apple documentation (could possibly be because I didn't read the documentation :-), but I was pleasantly surprised to find that the Backgrounder/PrintMonitor spooler works with the SC just as it does with any other LaserWriter. John -- john j. chew, iii phone: +1 416 425 3818 AppleLink: CDA0329 trigraph, inc., toronto, canada {uunet!utai!utcsri,utgpu,utzoo}!trigraph!john dept. of math., u. of toronto poslfit@{utorgpu.bitnet,gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca}
capslock@well.UUCP (Allen Crider) (09/26/89)
In article <20062@usc.edu> kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: > >...if you are waiting for 7.0 until you get that SC then >forget that $300 ATM investment. With the Apple outline fonts, you >won't need ATM. :) > Free? Very few "Royal" fonts are going to be free. Ever since Apple's announcement of System 7, I've gotten the impression that people think fonts will be absolutely free. What I really hate is the idea of having to buy Royal Palatino, Royal Avant Garde, Royal Baskerville, five varieties of "Royal" Garamond. I already own these in Adobe PostScript. For people in the Lino service bureau business, Royal fonts will be a nightmare, and will offer no apparent improvements in quality (I suspect less quality) or speed or PRICE. Apple Computer has stated they will only provide a few fonts to be released with System 7. The rest will come from foundries like Bitstream or typesetting machine manufacturers such as Linotype and Varityper. They ain't gonna let 'em go cheap!
tv0c+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Edward Van Lenten) (09/27/89)
With those disk space requirements it sounds like ATM on a Plus or SE floppy system is out. [As a matter of fact, I don't even have space for that on my II with a 40 meg...] TVL
captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) (09/28/89)
In article <13818@well.UUCP> capslock@well.UUCP (Allen Crider) writes: > Free? Very few "Royal" fonts are going to be free. Ever since Apple's >announcement of System 7, I've gotten the impression that people think >fonts will be absolutely free. > What I really hate is the idea of having to buy Royal Palatino, Royal >Avant Garde, Royal Baskerville, five varieties of "Royal" >Garamond. I already own these in Adobe PostScript. I believe the plan is to include Outline fonts definitions for the standard LW+ fonts (and possibly the other fonts [NY, Geneva, Chicago] as well) with System 7. Furthermore, since Apple's making the font specs public and joining forces with Microsoft in establishing it as a standard in both Mac and IBM OS/2 platforms, I would expect conversion programs (PS Type 3 and even Type 1 fonts to Apple Format) practically overnight (especially the Type 3 conversion). I mean, what are you going to do? Using ATM in conjunction with System 7 will probably wreak havok with the Layout manager, and if you stay in System 6 you give up all the other powerful features of System 7. I find the conversion program a much more likely and useful alternative. >Apple Computer has stated they will only provide a >few fonts to be released with System 7. The rest will come from foundries >like Bitstream or typesetting machine manufacturers such as Linotype >and Varityper. They ain't gonna let 'em go cheap! Yup, that's true. What I'd like to see is a semi-automated Fontographer. Right now it allows you to load in scanned images, run them through Auto-Trace, and produce PostScript characters. The thing is, it's *extremely* tedious to do this with every character. It would be nice to see smart software which would take a scanned image, attempt to split it in "character cells" and then allow you to correspond the cells to appropriate characters (and of course with pre-defined character order layouts as well). After that it would chug away, Auto-Tracing the characters and finally spitting out an outline font. After all, there are several type books in the market, which are filled with nothing but samples of type. Can you see it? Go to the bookstore, drop $30 on this book, scan the pages in, and in a couple of days, you can have a *huge* type library. I don't foresee any legal problems either, since this seems to be "fair use" of the material - after all, the end result is a printed document with those fonts, and graphic artists have been doing that for years already. -Ivan Internet: captkidd@athena.mit.edu
jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) (09/28/89)
In article <14699@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> captkidd@athena.mit.edu (Ivan Cavero Belaunde) writes: >... Can you see it? Go to the bookstore, drop $30 on this >book, scan the pages in, and in a couple of days, you can have a *huge* >type library. I don't foresee any legal problems either, since this >seems to be "fair use" of the material - after all, the end result is a >printed document with those fonts, and graphic artists have been doing >that for years already. Yes, this is certainly legal, since the printed representation of a typeface cannot be copyrighted. What you suggest in your article, though, isn't really practical for professional applications, unless your "batch mode" font scanner is smart enough to produce a decent set of kerning pairs ... this requires AI that is still under development and which is closely guarded where it exists in industry. I would think that maybe if you had a 400 or 600 dpi scanner and a large sample of text to work from (say, a book), you could write software that would autotrace, smooth, etc., and deduce kerning pairs (ligatures would be another pain), but then it would have to be an accurate OCR, too, unless you wanted to type the text in yourself ... I am a little dismayed at the high unit pricing of fonts from the professional suppliers, but have hope that it will come down and that the individual users won't be so thoroughly screwed as they have been the past few years. I would think that a font library of, say, 25-50 faces (with a reasonable set of stylistic variations and several hundred kerning pairs apiece) shouldn't cost more than an application like Word or Illustrator. Or maybe some university will get into the act and produce a set of good public-domain fonts for the masses ... v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive v v s s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606 v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist -----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.
Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) (10/01/89)
Comments:
- The stuff about how expensive the Mac seems compared to MS-DOS compatibles
has been hashed over a lot already. I want to read about ATM. So can that
discussion be moved somewhere more appropriate?
- The fella from GE seems to have a big problem with the definition of "font"
and I suppose that's ok, except that before the Macintosh, anyone who used
the word font took it to mean the expression of a typeface in a specified
style. The words "typeface" and "type family" are much more appropriate.
There are scores of variations on Helvetica, including Helvetica Black,
Helvetica Condensed, Helvetica Light. Would you want these all to be called
part of the Helvetica "font?" If you do, then you should ask Apple to expand
the functionality of the "Style" menu to accomodate these rich variations.
You can argue all you want about deception, but the original deciever was
Apple, when it decided to bastardize the word with a "font" menu.
- A lot of folks seem to have bought into the media hype over "competing
font technologies." Hogwash. Adobe simply decided it liked the way it
generated font outlines much better. And judging from the way other
font companies have attempted to implement outlines, I have to agree.
Nothing compares with the quality of Adobe fonts. Nothing. I beleive
Adobe feels that in lieu of system-level support for PostScript, they'd
either have to convert their whole library to Royal format (possibly
at a loss of quality, or the need to have a Royal outline for the screen
and a PostScript outline for the printer) or keep their high-quality
format and give users the same functionality for Adobe fonts, somehow.
ATM gives Adobe customers the peace of mind that they will not have to
"upgrade" their fonts. And if they use Adobe fonts exclusively, they will
reap font-rendering benefits months before System 7.
- ImageWriters come in two flavors. The ImageWriter I has a maximum resoution
of 72 dpi. The screen fonts were printed directly, and were the highest
quality possible for that machine. You cannot get better print quality,
even with double-sized bitmaps installed. The only benefit of System 7 or
or ATM will be that you will be able to print in sizes not installed as
explicit bitmaps (like 16-point, 11-point, or 48-point). ImageWriter II
printers have a maximum resolution of 144 dpi. System 7 and ATM will let
users of those printers print fonts at the highest resolution of their
printer without installing double-sized bitmaps. Users of LQ printers
should have similar benefits, and should users of the AppleFax modem and
LaserWriter IISC.
- Having to buy the LaserWriter Plus font set is a drag, and in cases
where a fella has a single LaserWriter Plus or IINT/X connected to his
personal machine, possibly unfair. But the license agreement was very
clear that you purchase a font description for use with one CPU at a time.
Most LaserWriters are used by several people, with several Macs. With ATM,
you'll be using the font on several Macs (CPUs) at a time. I'd like to see
the Plus set of fonts available as a special bundle at the introduction of
ATM, perhaps both for $250 list, which would bring it under $200 mail order.
Because ATM will give non-Postscript printers the ability to print Adobe
quality fonts, I see no reason why Adobe should give away their most popular
fonts to users of DeskWriters, PaintJets, etc.
Questions:
- How will ATM interface with Adobe Illustrator? Will Illustrator users
(finally) be able to edit the outlines of the letters? Certain perspective
effects are currently impossible with Illustrator when text is involved,
as are effects where the letterform is curved to match an arced path. I'd
like to be able to have that kind of control without resorting to
LetraStudio.
- For users who bought a hard disk full of font outlines for their LaserWriter
IINT, the outline capabilities are both wondrous and distressing. Will ATM
read the fonts from the disk drive on the IINT? Will I have to load those
same fonts onto my Mac's hard disk as well?It seems the only reasonable
alternative is to move the NT Hard disk to my Mac, and loose all the
benefits of having the fonts directly available to my laser printer.
- Apple has said it will not support rotated text with its Royal scheme.
Will ATM offer that?
You don't have to be a "type weenie" to appreciate the quality of Adobe's
fonts and the freedom afforded by having one scheme for describing both
display and printed matter. I can't say I've always loved Adobe for its
slowness to open up Postscript and its font outlines to the public. I think
if it had made these moves earlier, Apple would have had less resistance to
implementing some sort of display postscript in the Mac OS.
I intend to get ATM the instant it's available. I also intend to get System
7 when it becomes available. I doubt I'll be "locked" into choosing one or
the other; ATM will kick in when I try to print an Adobe font, and Royal will
go to work when I print in other fonts.
Now, if only we could persuade Adobe to have an option in Illustrator to
"Save as editable PICT" we'd really be able to sleep at night!
-Bill Marriottfriedman@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Daniel Friedman) (10/02/89)
In article <22693@cup.portal.com> Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) writes: > ... stuff deleted before and after ... >- ImageWriters come in two flavors. The ImageWriter I has a maximum resoution > of 72 dpi. The screen fonts were printed directly, and were the highest > quality possible for that machine. You cannot get better print quality, > even with double-sized bitmaps installed. The only benefit of System 7 or Wrong.
amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (10/02/89)
In article <22693@cup.portal.com>, Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) writes: > > - Apple has said it will not support rotated text with its Royal scheme. > Will ATM offer that? > Royal itself isn't the problem--it's QuickDraw that won't handle rotation. ATM will probably have the same problem. The question I have is whether or not Apple and/or Adobe will put in rotation "hooks" (such as interpreting the LaserWriter Driver PicComments) that will allow drawing programs to ask for it. That would be something of extreme niftyness... -- Amanda Walker amanda@intercon.com
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (10/03/89)
In article <1474@intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <22693@cup.portal.com>, Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) >writes: >> >> - Apple has said it will not support rotated text with its Royal scheme. >> Will ATM offer that? >> > >Royal itself isn't the problem--it's QuickDraw that won't handle rotation. >ATM will probably have the same problem. > >The question I have is whether or not Apple and/or Adobe will put in rotation >"hooks" (such as interpreting the LaserWriter Driver PicComments) that will >allow drawing programs to ask for it. That would be something of extreme >niftyness... I think what most people mean by rotated text (correct me if I'm wrong ;-) is printing text that has been rotated by Applications such as canvas, MacDraw, etc... All they do is some off screen rotation of the bitmap and then copybit(ing) it over. These applications print fine with ATM to PostScript or QuickDraw based printers. I can't comment on Royal fonts here. As for future versions of ATM - I'll mark down your suggestions and pass them on to the product manager. I also wanted to add a few answers to Bill Mariott's earlier questions (rn would crash when I tried). 1) ATM and Adobe Illustrator. A new version of Adobe Illustrator will be shipped to all registered AI 88 owners (version 1.9). It will be compatible with ATM, will save EPS files w/color previews, compatible w/32 bit QuickDraw, and work with the Adobe Originals Expert sets. Before you ask when it will be available, it just went into Q.A., with a mass mailing to all owners it should be arriving end of October-beginning November. I'll post further details. AI 88 1.9 won't edit the outlines and I can't comment on the version 3.0 release yet :-) 2) Font Folio (entire Adobe Type library on a disk) comes w/a back-up copy of the outlines that can be used on a Mac. Unfortunately you can't read the outlines off of the printers hard disk* - besides it would violate some legal agreement somewhere, speed would be horrible, etc... You still get speed benefits of having the drive on the printer (saves downloading time and for users who might not have ATM installed). The outlines need to be in the System Folder unless you relocate them with MasterJuggler 1.5 or Suitcase II 1.2.5 (or later versions). (*) I can't comment entirely on that topic. 3) Rotated text - see above original question. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
jb28+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Barbose) (10/04/89)
From what I understand, the hooks for font rotation and other nifties are there, just not implemented in 7.0. Jeff
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (10/06/89)
In article <265@axecore.UUCP> lloyd@axecore.UUCP (Lloyd Buchanan) writes: > >Brian, you've sold me. One little question though. > >Did Adobe test ATM with the AppleFax product? Will I >be able to fax documents with ANY size fonts and have >it look decent? > >If yes, my hat's off to you folk. >----------------------------------------------------------- >Lloyd Buchanan uunet!axecore!lloyd Lloyd, Sorry for the long delay in replying - busy testing :-) We found an Apple Fax, had a line installed, and then used Avant Garde in sizes from 9 - 48 point for a quick test with and without ATM - you have to see it to believe it (and you can in 2 weeks), the output was excellent. Better than a photocopy of LaserWriter output faxed traditionally. Hope that answers your question. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
bmug@garnet.berkeley.edu (BMUG) (10/07/89)
In article <1269@adobe.UUCP> bezanson@adobe.UUCP (Brian Bezanson) writes: >In article <265@axecore.UUCP> lloyd@axecore.UUCP (Lloyd Buchanan) writes: >> >>Did Adobe test ATM with the AppleFax product? > > (commentary on the fact that ATM works well with the AppleFAX modem) OK, has anyone tried ATM with the Reliasys FAX product? (The Reliasys is basically a FAX machine which connects to a Mac via cable and allows sending of FAXes directly from the machine, without an intermediate printing step. When a FAX comes in, however, it prints to the usual coated paper instead of to the computer, which the various card and standalone faxmodem products do. I haven't used one, but I'll be checking one out for a future purchase.) John Heckendorn /\ BMUG ARPA: bmug@garnet.berkeley.EDU A__A 1442A Walnut St., #62 BITNET: bmug@ucbgarne |()| Berkeley, CA 94709 Phone: (415) 549-2684 | |
vita@daredevil.crd.ge.com (10/10/89)
In an article Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) writes: >- The fella from GE seems to have a big problem with the definition of "font" > and I suppose that's ok, except that before the Macintosh, anyone who used > the word font took it to mean the expression of a typeface in a specified > style. >... > You can argue all you want about deception, but the original deciever was > Apple, when it decided to bastardize the word with a "font" menu. A couple of points: 1) No, I don't really have a big problem with the definition of "font". The disagreement is not over what the correct technical definition of the term is, but rather what its common, colloquial meaning is (i.e. "typeface"). The latter meaning is the one likely to be known to the average Macintosh user who happens across Adobe's ad in MacUser. 2) It is absolutely untrue that the common misuse of the term "font" originated with Apple (though Apple certainly may have contributed to popularizing the incorrect usage). This usage of the term dates back at least to the Xerox Alto and Star in the late 70's/early 80's. It is also very prevalent on non-Apple computing platforms (such as the Sun). The term is also commonly (mis)used in this manner outside of the realm of computing. For example, I used to work as a typesetter for a small weekly publication back in 1980-82; we commonly used the word "font" in exactly that same manner that Mac users use the term today. This was probably largely because "font" was easier and faster to say than "font family" or "typeface". Anyway, the issue of "who's to blame" for the incorrect usage is really irrelevant; the simple fact of the matter is that, for whatever reasons, the meaning of the word in the context of the Macintosh *has changed*. "Font" to Macintosh users means "typeface". Advertisers should use terminology which is consistent with the common usage of buyers in the marketplace. > There are scores of variations on Helvetica, including Helvetica Black, > Helvetica Condensed, Helvetica Light. Would you want these all to be called > part of the Helvetica "font?" No, but on the other hand, if I call MacConnection and order a font, say "Times", I automatically receive all of the "common" variations (i.e. roman, italic, bold, bold-italic). I don't have to call them and say, "I'd like to order a copy of Times Roman, a copy of Times Italic, a copy of Times Bold, and a copy of Times Bold-Italic". The fonts are sold as families. My overall point is that just because you use terminology which is technically correct, this does not mean that you are not being deceptive. Especially if you know full well that the audience you are communicating with will interpret the term differently from the meaning you have for it. To cite an analogous example: I once worked in a sub shop where the owner advertised on his sign that he had "Over 120 Varieties". In reality, he only had about 7 or 8 different kinds of sub. I once asked him how he could possibly claim to have over 120 varieties. In response, he started to name off what he called "varieties": 1. Cheese steak (plain). 2. Cheese steak with onions. 3. Cheese steak with peppers. 4. Cheese steak with onions and peppers. 5. Cheese steak with mushrooms. 6. Cheese steak with mushrooms and onions. 7. Cheese steak with mushrooms and peppers. 8. Cheese steak with mushrooms, onions and peppers. 9. ... etc., etc. So, while what he said was *technically* correct, it was nevertheless quite deceptive. Technically, he may have been perfectly justified to define each of these as a "variety", but this is certainly not what the term generally meant to the audience for whom the sign was intended. I believe that Adobe is engaging in precisely this sort of deception when it advertises that ATM comes with "13 of the most popular fonts". This implies that each included font is a separate, useful entity whose popularity can be measured independently (i.e. "Times Bold Italic" is demonstrably more popular than "Univers Oblique".) In reality, these fonts are sold and used as families; would anyone want to buy just the Bold Oblique version of Helvetica? Of course not. >The words "typeface" and "type family" are much more appropriate. I agree. In fact, I think it would be great if Adobe would modify their advertising copy so that instead of reading "13 of the most popular fonts", it says "4 of the most popular font families". But I don't think that they'll do it. Saying "13 fonts" makes it sound like people are getting more for their money than they actually are, and I'm sure they are fully aware of this. Mark Vita vita@crd.ge.com General Electric CRD ..!uunet!crd.ge.com!vita Schenectady, NY
mcdonald@uxe.cso.uiuc.edu (10/12/89)
>A couple of points: >1) No, I don't really have a big problem with the definition of > "font". The disagreement is not over what the correct technical > definition of the term is, but rather what its common, colloquial > meaning is (i.e. "typeface"). The latter meaning is the one likely to > be known to the average Macintosh user who happens across Adobe's > ad in MacUser. I'l tell you what a font is: It describes all the little pieces of metal that comes in a big wooden box - on the front it would say "Times Roman 10 point" and that's what it would be. If you wanted Times Roman 7 point you would go look for the font labeled "Times Roman 7 point". If you were using a computer, you wouldn't look for "fonts" - you would look for "files" on a floppy or hard disk! :-) :-) :-) Incidentally, what size IS Adobe's Times Roman intended for - all the different sizes it prints out are just scaled versions of what presumably originated as a copy of one particular size of a genuine (metal) Times Roman font. The letters of real (metal) fonts are usually shaped differently (not scaled versions of one another), at least a little, for each font (size of type). Doug McDonald
jb28+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Barbose) (10/12/89)
Incidentally, what size IS Adobe's Times Roman intended for - all the different sizes it prints out are just scaled versions of what presumably originated as a copy of one particular size of a genuine (metal) Times Roman font. The letters of real (metal) fonts are usually shaped differently (not scaled versions of one another), at least a little, for each font (size of type). ------------ Actually, there are things called _hints_ which help to make smaller sizes look better, so all font sizes are not _purely_ a scaled version of a generic font. Yes, these are crude changes compared to REAL fonts, but hey, we're talking about computers here, where everything is just an approximation of an analog, continuous universe..... Jeff
Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) (10/12/89)
Mark Vita Writes: | I think it would be great if Adobe would modify | their advertising copy so that instead of reading "13 of the most | popular fonts", it says "4 of the most popular font families". I think it would be great, too, because that would mean I could get more than 102 styles of Helvetica for the price of four. To be absolutely certain you don't mislead customrs, you'd actually have to word your improved advertisement something like, "four each of the most common variations of the three type families you're used to seeing from LaserWriters, plus one variation of another font." The example of sandwiches is colorful, but inappropriate, because to do an italic font right, you have to go back to the drawing board and build the font from the ground up. It's *NOT* like adding a pickle to a sandwich. Otherwise, you would have to settle for mathematical transformations of the font, instead of the more aesthetic hand-crafted italics offered by Adobe. Compare printed italics with the way italics look on your screen when no true italic screen bitmap is available. Compare Helvetica Narrow with Helvetica Condensed. You thought "Outline" was a style? Compare that with the many "Open Face" versions of some fonts. Call it crazy, but somehow Adobe makes money off people who care about those differences. You'd like to call it the Helvetica "font" and leave it at that. Okay, but what do you call Helvetica Black? A new font? A new family? A new Typeface? You'll have to define those words for me all over again. I knew what they meant, but apparently I'm out of step with the times. What about Bodoni Poster? Is that a family, a font, or a typeface? If you bought a copy of Bodoni Poster, would you expect to Get Bodoni Poster Bold, Bodoni Poster Italic, and Bodoni Poster Bold Italic, too? (They don't exist yet.) Or would you want to get Bodoni Plain, Bodoni Italic, Bodoni Bold, and Bodoni Bold Italic? Apparently, if we do not want to mislead the customer, we need a new word for fonts that don't have the Four Variations. Perhaps simply a "semi-font"? "Font-ette?" Until the NFNT format came along, these stylistic variations of typefaces were listed as *separate items* under the "font" menu, so there _is_ precedence in the Mac environment for considering these fellows discreet fonts. Adobe, please don't change your packaging. The dictionary still says, "a complete assortment of type _in_one_size_and_style_" -- scalable font technology provides an infinite number of sizes and thus makes the distinction of "size" meaningless, but technology has *not* been able to take over the the creative process required to make *true* style variations. (The real purists among us might point out that one should adjust line widths and such when fonts grow larger.) Mark, I don't think you have any doubt in your mind, at this point about what you are buying when Adobe says it bundles "13 fonts" with ATM. And hopefully, if we can keep terminology straight, no one else will be confused, either. I could see your point about "deception" if Adobe used the word "font" inconsistently, but they don't. In fact, their larger ads for ATM have a little picture of all the fonts that come with the package, so there's no confusion. While you might not agree with the way Adobe uses the word, they are (1) consistent, and (2) right. I suggest that if you want to use the Apple definition of "Font" that you also use the Apple definition of "Style" -- which (in the case of italics) is really skewed up. -Bill Marriott
alms@cambridge.apple.com (Andrew L. M. Shalit) (10/12/89)
In article <23012@cup.portal.com> Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) writes: Mark Vita Writes: | I think it would be great if Adobe would modify | their advertising copy so that instead of reading "13 of the most | popular fonts", it says "4 of the most popular font families". [stuff deleted] To be absolutely certain you don't mislead customrs, you'd actually have to word your improved advertisement something like, "four each of the most common variations of the three type families you're used to seeing from LaserWriters, plus one variation of another font." Come on. You could say something like: "13 fonts from 4 of the most popular font families". I think this nomenclature business is a sign of Adobe's problem with the market in general. They target the high-end audience (i.e. professional designer) very effectively, but have trouble scaling to the mass market. (Maybe they need better hints :-)) -andrew
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (10/13/89)
In article <kZB1eze00WB684dGho@andrew.cmu.edu> jb28+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jeffrey Joseph Barbose) writes: >...Metal fonts are usually shaped differently (not scaled versions of one >another), at least a little, for each font (size of type). ... >Actually, there are things called _hints_ which help to make smaller sizes >look better, so all font sizes are not _purely_ a scaled version of a generic >font. ... I thought the hints were more an adjustment for varying resolution (e.g., taking the slant out of a delicate typeface at 300dpi) than for visual optimization. As far as I know, no digital typeface manufacturer produces 'optically corrected' fonts (although one -- can't remember which, but it's not Adobe -- claims they're going to). -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
gelphman@adobe.COM (David Gelphman) (10/13/89)
In article <1474@intercon.com> amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes: >In article <22693@cup.portal.com>, Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) >writes: >> - Apple has said it will not support rotated text with its Royal scheme. >> Will ATM offer that? >Royal itself isn't the problem--it's QuickDraw that won't handle rotation. >ATM will probably have the same problem. > >The question I have is whether or not Apple and/or Adobe will put in rotation >"hooks" (such as interpreting the LaserWriter Driver PicComments) that will >allow drawing programs to ask for it. That would be something of extreme >niftyness... >Amanda Walker Adobe Type Manager has full capabilities to allow arbitrary rotation, scaling, and skewing just like a PostScript interpreter. For those familiar with the PostScript language, ATM can handle the equivalent of the matrix passed to the 'makefont' operator. QuickDraw does not yet offer an application interface to specify these attributes. ATM on the Mac therefore has a special application interface which allows applications to pass this data directly to ATM. We are currently in the process of documenting that interface so all applications can take advantage of this functionality. I'll be happy to post the documents when they are available (which should be before the end of October). David Gelphman Adobe Systems Incorporated
geoff@pmafire.UUCP (Geoff Allen) (10/17/89)
In article <23012@cup.portal.com> Lou@cup.portal.com (William Joseph Marriott) writes: >Mark Vita Writes: > >| I think it would be great if Adobe would modify >| their advertising copy so that instead of reading "13 of the most > >| popular fonts", it says "4 of the most popular font families". > >I think it would be great, too, because that would mean I could >get more than 102 styles of Helvetica for the price of four. > >To be absolutely certain you don't mislead customers, you'd >actually have to word your improved advertisement something >like, "four each of the most common variations of the three type >families you're used to seeing from LaserWriters, plus one >variation of another font." The latest ad for ATM in MacWorld (November 1989, p. 201) says: TIMES Roman, Italic, Bold, & Bold Italic HELVETICA Regular, Oblique, Bold, & Bold Oblique COURIER Medium. Oblique, Bold, & Bold Oblique SYMBOL [stuff written in Symbol] [each of these is written in the typeface -- e.g. `Roman' is written in Times Roman, `Medium' is written in Courier Medium, etc., so you know what you're getting.] Adobe Type Manager includes high-quality outline versions of these 13 most popular Macintosh fonts. You can also add any PostScript outline fonts, including those from the Adobe Type Library. This pretty well seems to remove the ambiguity. -- Geoff Allen \ Disclaimer: WINCO doesn't believe in Macs, {uunet|bigtex}!pmafire!geoff \ so of course these are my views. ucdavis!egg-id!pmafire!geoff \
lloyd@axecore.UUCP (Lloyd Buchanan) (10/22/89)
I called Adobe to order ATM. They told me that they would be delighted to sell it for $99 and ship in the undetermined future but that I may be happier paying $60 for overnight delivery from a firm like MacWarehouse. They were right. Two points for honesty. The product is excellent. I don't have an Imagewriter but I do have a fax modem and the output from it is dramatically better. The screen output is also much easier to read. The performance difference is less than I expected. Oddball comments though... Only two applications I use don't work with ATM. Cricket Chart 1.3 is a disappointing product to start with made more so by not working w/ATM. I remember Brian mentioning that Illustrator 88 doesn't work with it. He wasn't kidding. Adobe at least promises an upgrade. When I bought most of my fonts, Adobe sold them with copy-protection. They sent backup disks to registered users and later offered to "upgrade" to the non-copy-protected versions for (as I recall) $50 apiece. Didn't seem worth it at the time. Those protected fonts don't work with ATM though. (The "upgrade" is still not worth $50 on principle!) All in all, I am just a satisfied customer. ----------------------------------------------------------- Lloyd Buchanan uunet!axecore!lloyd Axe Core Investors lloyd%axecore@uunet.uu.net Axe Castle (914) 333-5226 (phone) Tarrytown, NY 10591 (914) 333-5203 (FAX)
dw2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Duane T. Williams) (10/24/89)
I find it interesting that many people seem to like ATM. I've tried it with my 1MB Mac Plus and ImageWriter. I don't have lots of cache memory available. Font scaling on screen is extremely slow; so it is only usable with screen fonts that don't have to be scaled. Hence, it doesn't improve the appearance of my fonts on screen. I typically use 9, 10 and 12 point fonts for my correspondence. At these sizes using ATM makes a negligible difference in the quality of my printed output. In some cases, letting Apple's printer driver scale down a double sized font gives nicer output than ATM produces. On my system ATM doesn't live up to either of its advertised benefits, and the loss of RAM for the font cache hurts, as does the poor performance when ATM scaling is required. Duane Williams dtw@cs.cmu.edu
macduff@cbnewse.ATT.COM (Roger R. Espinosa) (10/24/89)
In article <cZEx8GG00UhW83cHYf@andrew.cmu.edu>, dw2x+@andrew.cmu.edu (Duane T. Williams) writes: > > I find it interesting that many people seem to like ATM. I've tried it > with my 1MB Mac Plus and ImageWriter. I don't have lots of cache memory > available. Font scaling on screen is extremely slow; so it is only > usable with screen fonts that don't have to be scaled. Hence, it Even on my 4 Mb SE, font scaling was slow (although it was interesting to hit a key and then watch the HD light go "blitter blitter blitter" as ATM grabbed outline information (I presume)). I converted the bitmapped fonts that came with ATM with the freeware NFNT program, and that screwed them up, something that did NOT happen with the Adobe Screenfonts I picked up from Sumex-aim. Redraw was real slow, and not *that* spectacular. > doesn't improve the appearance of my fonts on screen. I typically use > 9, 10 and 12 point fonts for my correspondence. At these sizes using > ATM makes a negligible difference in the quality of my printed output. > In some cases, letting Apple's printer driver scale down a double sized > font gives nicer output than ATM produces. On my system ATM doesn't > live up to either of its advertised benefits, and the loss of RAM for > the font cache hurts, as does the poor performance when ATM scaling is > required. > > Duane Williams > dtw@cs.cmu.edu My favorite font is Garamond-3. I have it in screenfont. I used to be real keen on Times. I thought this would be the time to change back. BUT Garamond-3 bitmapped looks BETTER than Times-ATM. The only font in the ATM package that looked "nicer" was ... Courier. Don't get me wrong - I think ATM just isn't going to make the ImageWriter II live any longer. I'm hoping that ATM will work better on a DeskWriter, but I dunno, since I don't own one (yet hope hope). The >20pt fonts WERE NICER, both on screen and in print. ATM also seemed to be incompatible with MacScheme. Dunno for sure, though. Oh well. I was hoping (really hoping) that ATM would make me love my IWII more. *Sigh*. At least Garamond-3 never looked so good! Roger Espinosa rre@ihlpn.ATT.COM
david@wiley.UUCP (David Hull) (10/27/89)
I just got ATM and it only took me about 5 minutes to figure out that it doesn't do what I want most: produce good looking type for screen preview at small sizes (11 point, for example). In fact, ATM-generated type at 11 points doesn't look appreciably better than that produced by QuickDraw scaling. (Large sizes look great, though). My question is, would it be possible for ATM to produce grey-scale fonts? I think that QuickDraw has to convert 1 bit fonts to the depth of the screen anyway, before it can blit them onto the screen. Doesn't the Mac II ROM contain multi-bit versions of Chicago, just so that conversion doesn't have to be done? Here's hoping for version 1.1. -David Hull
gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) (10/27/89)
Here's my question about ATM... I don't give a rat's ass about on-screen scaling... all I want is good outlines fonts for my DeskWriter!!! Can I have the printer scaling WITHOUT the screen scaling??? nrg -- Department of Philosophy _________________________ "One age misunderstands another; and a _petty_ age misunderstands all the others in its own nasty way" - L. Wittgenstein
denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) (10/30/89)
From article <4677@yunexus.UUCP>, by gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall): > > Here's my question about ATM... I don't give a rat's ass about > on-screen scaling... all I want is good outlines fonts for my > DeskWriter!!! Can I have the printer scaling WITHOUT the screen > scaling??? Save your bucks. The deskwriter comes with the same 4 font families as ATM. Theirs are also scalable. I have printed from 4 to 127 point, and it looks beautiful. The Seven additional fonts that Adobe sells are available from HP for either $200 or $300 list. -- William C. DenBesten is denbeste@bgsu.edu or denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet
hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Josh Hodas) (10/30/89)
In article <5082@bgsuvax.UUCP> denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes: >From article <4677@yunexus.UUCP>, by gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall): >> >> Here's my question about ATM... I don't give a rat's ass about >> on-screen scaling... all I want is good outlines fonts for my >> DeskWriter!!! Can I have the printer scaling WITHOUT the screen >> scaling??? > >Save your bucks. The deskwriter comes with the same 4 font families >as ATM. Theirs are also scalable. I have printed from 4 to 127 point, >and it looks beautiful. The Seven additional fonts that Adobe sells >are available from HP for either $200 or $300 list. > >-- >William C. DenBesten is denbeste@bgsu.edu or denbesten@bgsuopie.bitnet Perhaps William has missed the point of ATM. Adobe does not sell "Seven additional fonts". They sell hundreds of fonts that will work with ATM, or a postscript printer. Any Adobe outline font will work with ATM; without ATM Norm is limited to the 11 families available from HP. The seven fonts William refers to are an ATM add-on (the Plus-Pack) of seven fonts that would not be of particular interest to the usual Adobe customer, that is the outline for the rest of the fonts built into the most popular Pstscript printers. But this is by no means the only set usable with ATM. Now I say this only as someone who has been using ATM with a deskwriter for a week now together with a large collection of Adobe outlines. I do not work for adobe, I am only a (moderately) satisfied customer. My biggest qualm with all of this is that once you get hooked on outline fonts, they can cost a small fortune. As to Norms original question, there is not, as far as I know, a way to disable screen scaling and only use it on the printer. But note that screen scaling only kicks in if ATM doesnt find a screen font in the requested size. So if you have bitmaps in most of the screen sizes you use (and I reccomend this for speed reasons) then you will in effect have the disabling you want. Josh ------------------------- Josh Hodas (hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) 4223 Pine Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 222-7112 (home) (215) 898-5423 (school office)
hpoppe@bierstadt.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) (10/31/89)
In article <16128@netnews.upenn.edu> hodas@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Josh Hodas) writes: *In article <5082@bgsuvax.UUCP* denbeste@bgsuvax.UUCP (William C. DenBesten) writes: **From article <4677@yunexus.UUCP*, by gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall): *** *** Here's my question about ATM... I don't give a rat's ass about *** on-screen scaling... all I want is good outlines fonts for my *** DeskWriter!!! Can I have the printer scaling WITHOUT the screen *** scaling??? * [Stuff deleted] * *As to Norms original question, there is not, as far as I know, a way to disable *screen scaling and only use it on the printer. But note that screen scaling *only kicks in if ATM doesnt find a screen font in the requested size. So if *you have bitmaps in most of the screen sizes you use (and I reccomend this for *speed reasons) then you will in effect have the disabling you want. Can ATM be used to generate and save these bitmaps in a format that can be loaded into the System File with the FontDA Mover? If so, how? Herb Poppe NCAR INTERNET: hpoppe@ncar.ucar.edu (303) 497-1296 P.O. Box 3000 CSNET: hpoppe@ncar.CSNET Boulder, CO 80307 UUCP: hpoppe@ncar.UUCP
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (10/31/89)
In article <4677@yunexus.UUCP> gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) writes: >Here's my question about ATM... I don't give a rat's ass about >on-screen scaling... all I want is good outlines fonts for my >DeskWriter!!! Can I have the printer scaling WITHOUT the screen >scaling??? ATM sends back scaled images based on what's available at the dpi of the graphics window you're drawing into. If you are using 10 and 12 point text, and have those sizes of bitmaps installed, ATM won't do anything. When you print to your DeskWriter and it is set up for 300 dpi at 10, 12 point, ATM will step in and generate the outline image. If all you use is 10, 12, 14, 18, or 24 point to the screen, ATM will effectively be off except when you print to a > 72dpi device. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (10/31/89)
In article <4881@ncar.ucar.edu>, hpoppe@bierstadt.ucar.edu (Herb Poppe) writes: > Can ATM be used to generate and save these bitmaps in a format that > can be loaded into the System File with the FontDA Mover? If so, how? As far as I have been able to determine, no, not easily. In particular, ATM will not hand you a new bitmap if you call FMSwapFont requesting a new size. I would guess that this is for licensing reasons, but it would be generate bitmaps in odd sizes that I use frequently, if only for speed reasons. -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com>
amanda@mermaid.intercon.com (Amanda Walker) (10/31/89)
In article <1522@intercon.com>, I write: > but it would be generate bitmaps Make that, "but it would be useful to be able to generate bitmaps." A small parity error in the output buffer, I guess :-). -- Amanda Walker <amanda@intercon.com>
bezanson@adobe.COM (Brian Bezanson) (11/01/89)
In article <4881@ncar.ucar.edu> hpoppe@bierstadt.UCAR.EDU (Herb Poppe) writes: >Can ATM be used to generate and save these bitmaps in a format that >can be loaded into the System File with the FontDA Mover? If so, how? Not in the current version. I'll pass this 'desired feature' onto the powers that be for the next version. If anyone else has features they would like to see, let Adobe know. -- Brian Bezanson bezanson@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated The opinions expressed above are my own and may not represent those of Adobe.