kelly@nmtsun.nmt.edu (Sean Kelly) (07/16/89)
I'm still a fair rank beginner when it comes to TeX and computer
typesetting in general. I've only just learned how to make a
boxed table--yow!
I'm really impressed with the sophistication of Knuth's masterwork,
TeX, but I'm rather disappointed to find that on our system all
we have are American and Computer Modern fonts (which look about the
same to me). But ...
Why are the Computer Modern fonts called `computer modern' when they
look more like Pre-electricity Antique?!? Even the sans serif (cmss10)
looks more dated than my great aunt Olga (apologies to her)!
So I picked up a copy of {\sl The METAFONTbook}, and found, to my
dismay, that DEK outdid himself again with unbounding sophistication!
I just wanted to sit down with a copy of a typeface book and make a nice
simple serifed style more to my liking, and found out that I have
to learn _another_ language! Argggh!
I'm getting desparate. I know TeX is better than our WYSIWYG system,
Interleaf. But my friends who insist on using Interleaf still
outdo my creations with TeX just because their typestyles look
much more up-to-date and nice.
Where can I find Times Roman? Century Oldstyle? Futura? Anything?!?
Is there somewhere I can anonymously FTP all necessary information?
Or perhaps the Metafont source code? HELP!!
Herman Zapf, give me strength ...
--
kelly (sean) `What is the wasting?'
kelly@nmtsun.nmt.edu `The wasting is ... the wasting!'
Std disclaimers apply `Ahhhhh.' --Dr ?
--dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Donald Hosek) (07/17/89)
In article <2973@nmtsun.nmt.edu> kelly@jupiter.nmt.edu (Sean Kelly) writes: >I'm really impressed with the sophistication of Knuth's masterwork, >TeX, but I'm rather disappointed to find that on our system all >we have are American and Computer Modern fonts (which look about the >same to me). But ... > >Why are the Computer Modern fonts called `computer modern' when they >look more like Pre-electricity Antique?!? Even the sans serif (cmss10) >looks more dated than my great aunt Olga (apologies to her)! First a correction: AM stands for "almost modern". It is the precursor to CM (computer modern), and really should not be used. (It would be sort of like insisting on using CPM, even though you have a 386 machine with MS-DOS capability... the same idea, but the newer stuff works better). The Modern style itself is in fact over 200 years old. If you can get a hold of volume E of Computers & Typesetting (Computer Modern Typefaces) there is an excellant introduction detailing the history of Modern and explaining what distinguishes a Modern typeface. The big problem with CM (and in fact all Modern typefaces) is that it is rather fragile due to the presence of many fine details. At 300dpi, the results can look quite bad, especially on a writes-white printer (all Xerox printers, and most printers over 10-12ppm are writes-white). However, if you can get access to a higher resolution output device, you'll see that CM is, in fact, a rather attractive face. (Look at it in the TeX & MF manuals... now is that so bad? One person I know in the UK who printed some sample sheets using CM on a typesetter for the first time suddenly converted from the anti-CM camp to the pro-CM camp in a flash). >So I picked up a copy of {\sl The METAFONTbook}, and found, to my >dismay, that DEK outdid himself again with unbounding sophistication! >I just wanted to sit down with a copy of a typeface book and make a nice >simple serifed style more to my liking, and found out that I have >to learn _another_ language! Argggh! I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but typeface design is not exactly something you can pick up in a weekend. Yes, you have to learn another language, but did you really expect otherwise? The only way to do it without learning another language would be to do the whole mess visually, and anyone who's worked with a bitmap editor for any extended time knows how painful THAT can be. >I'm getting desparate. I know TeX is better than our WYSIWYG system, >Interleaf. But my friends who insist on using Interleaf still >outdo my creations with TeX just because their typestyles look >much more up-to-date and nice. > >Where can I find Times Roman? Century Oldstyle? Futura? Anything?!? >Is there somewhere I can anonymously FTP all necessary information? >Or perhaps the Metafont source code? HELP!! The MF source for the CM fonts should be available at your site. It's very valuable as a model of what a character program should look like. None of the "traditional" typefaces are available at this time in MF format, although it is possible to get the Bitstream faces converted to TeX-style bitmaps. Also, many device drivers allow use of printer- resident faces. The big problem with these techinques is math. Put simply, nothing offers the range of math characters provided by TeX. And few faces look good with TeX math due to differences in sizes and weights. 'tis a pity. There are _some_ alternatives. At sun.soe.clarkson.edu in the directory pub/tex-fonts, there is a collection of all the PD MF faces available. Most are specialty fonts (e.g. elvish, electronic symbols, and the like). THere are two text faces however... Pandora is an interesting face which is midway between a serifed and sans-serifed face. It should work with CM math. However, it is an experimental face and is not available in many sizes. Concrete is an "Egyptian" variant of CM. It was first used in _Concrete Mathematics_ by G--- (I forget his name), Patashnik, and Knuth. It was designed to work with the Euler math fonts from the AMS. There is no boldface. There are also many fonts in bitmap form available from the Metafoundry. I don't have an address, but maybe someone on the net, could put it up. -dh
lacey@batcomputer.tn.cornell.edu (John Lacey) (07/17/89)
In article <1641@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> dhosek@jarthur.UUCP (Donald Hosek) writes: >There are also many fonts in bitmap form available from the Metafoundry. >I don't have an address, but maybe someone on the net, could put it up. > There are indeed. Georgia Tobin is the font designer at the Metafoundry, which is, alas, no more. It was a part of OCLC (the library terminal, you know?), and they decided font designing wasn't really their business. Soooo, the newer, nicer G. Tobin fonts are only available if you happen to work for OCLC (which, having seen them, is not a bad reason to work there). However, her older designs, for example Chel, and Decorative, are still available at a price from various licensees of the fonts. The only one in the U.S. is Personal TeX, Inc. I haven't their address off hand, but that shouldn't be too hard to find. Cheers, -- John Lacey | Internet: lacey@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu running unattached | BITnet: lacey@crnlthry | UUCP: cornell!batcomputer!lacey "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." ---Wittgenstein
john@nmtsun.nmt.edu (John Shipman) (07/18/89)
Donald Hosek (dhosek@jarthur.Claremont.EDU) writes: > And few faces look good with TeX math due to differences > in sizes and weights. 'tis a pity. I got a number of compliments on the appearance of Getz and Haight's book ``Population Harvesting,'' which I set for Princeton using Autologic's Baskerville for the text, with TeX math fonts. (Pardon me if it sounds like I'm blowing my own horn, but Knuth, the designers of Baskerville, and the book designer at Princeton should get all the credit; I just followed instructions.) -- John Shipman/Zoological Data Processing/Socorro, New Mexico USENET: ucbvax!unmvax!nmtsun!john CSNET: john@nmtsun.nmt.edu ``A lesson from past over-machined societies...the devices themselves condition the users to employ each other the way they employ machines.'' --Frank Herbert