cfejm@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (John Miller) (04/04/91)
Hi, all. I'm new to the group, and I may be asking a FAQ, but I'd appreciate e-mail replies. I'll post a summary to the net. Can anyone point me to a basic summary of the aspects of font implementatiopn on the Mac? By this, I mean explanations of construction, usage, and comparison of what has been (Postscript, ATM stuff, etc) what is (Truetype, outline technology), and what will be (?). Also, what about "type 1", "type 3", etc.? Thanks in advance, John Miller
briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm) (04/04/91)
>Can anyone point me to a basic summary of the aspects of font implementatiopn >on the Mac? By this, I mean explanations of construction, usage, and >comparison of what has been (Postscript, ATM stuff, etc) what is >(Truetype, outline technology), and what will be (?). Also, what >about "type 1", "type 3", etc.? Ah, yes, pernicious "perception molding" at work. Aren't modern business "practices" wonderful? The notion that PostScript is "what has been" is just what Apple (and their VERY strange bedfellow Microsoft) want you to believe. That you imply that somehow only TrueType is "outline technology," and PostScript isn't must have them giggling in their shirtcuffs. Some facts: 1. PostScript is a page description language, which has incorporated in it a very high order of graphic capability and very good outline fonts. 2. Apple developed TrueType because they were tired of paying high royalties to Adobe (and aren't we all?), and because only their PostScript printers offered decent typographic capabilities. (Only their PostScript printers offered decent graphic capabilities, too, but somehow that got lost in users' minds. Maybe it was because only their PostScript printers offered 300dpi resolution, without which Quick Draw's shortcomings were hidden?) 3. Apple temporarily "abandoned" PostScript because they were tired of paying high royalties to Adobe. (So was/am I. So are we all.) 4. Microsoft developed TrueType because Bill Gates was morally offended by a non-Microsoft company making money. Well, that may be coloring it... 5. Since 3. happened coincident with 4., Apple decided to join Microsoft. Apple figured that such harmony even overrode their look and feel lawsuit. Thus was the "Marriage from Hell." Well, that may be coloring it... 6. Seeing that the font technology hegemony was about to be breached (to mix some invidious metaphors), Adobe reacted. First, John Warnock got red in the face, and petulantly announced that Adobe would make the details of Type 1 fonts public. (This ended Adobe's monopoly on high-quality PostScript type. It took them 9 months to publish it. The secrets were already deduced by other companies anyway.) Then, Adobe did something positive: they extended PostScript font technology to the Macintosh (and later, PC) screens, calling it ATM. 7. Apple's enhanced Quick Draw, which now contains TrueType, STILL does not provide the graphic sophistication of PostScript. 8. TrueType does offer the typographic designer some refinements that PostScript can only implement using multiple font sets. You REALLY have to be a "guru" user of type to get into that level of improvements, in most cases. 9. Apple later recanted their decision to abandon PostScript. Something about howls of rage from quarters high and low... 10. The capabilities of TrueType (except for 8. above) have been provided by PostScript for many years now. Even ATM, which moved those capabilities onto the screen, is now several years old and has been enhanced several times. 11. The capabilities of PostScript, on the other hand, have not yet been matched by QuickDraw, even though the type capabilities have been brought well up to date with TrueType. Amazing what greed will do, isn't it? Now we have TWO type standards to choose from, even though every type house could and can produce to either. You the consumer benefit, right? Yeah, you benefit in higher prices because of all this folderol. That's the long outcome. Apple and Microsoft have to recoup their development costs, after all. However, until Apple/Microsoft threatened Adobe, we did pay higher prices for printers. But again, since the Type 1 font standard has been made public, Adobe hasn't exactly reduced their prices for type, have they? -- -Brian Diehm Tektronix, Inc. (503) 627-3437 briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM P.O. Box 500, M/S 47-780 Beaverton, OR 97077 (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
glenn@huxley.huxley.bitstream.com (Glenn P. Parker) (04/04/91)
In article <1707@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm) writes: > >...comparison of what has been (Postscript, ATM stuff, etc) what is > >(Truetype, outline technology), and what will be (?). ... > > Ah, yes, pernicious "perception molding" at work. Aren't modern business > "practices" wonderful? A little paranoid, perhaps? I read this as a turn of phrase, nothing more. > Some facts: Including some minor errors and some blatantly opinionated comments... > 2. Apple developed TrueType because they were tired of paying high royalties > to Adobe (and aren't we all?)... Probably true in part, but there were certainly other reasons. However, you contradict yourself later: > 4. Microsoft developed TrueType because Bill Gates was morally offended by a > non-Microsoft company making money. Well, that may be coloring it... Perhaps you meant to refer to TrueImage, a completely separate technology. > 8. TrueType does offer the typographic designer some refinements that > PostScript can only implement using multiple font sets. You REALLY have > to be a "guru" user of type to get into that level of improvements, in > most cases. Strictly your opinion. TrueType has numerous advantages over Type 1 that you seem to gloss over without a second look. Whether you have to be a "guru" or not remains to be seen, but I suggest that Type 1 fonts are not the simple creatures you imply. There are plenty of little details to creating Type 1 fonts that are not documented anywhere. > 9. Apple later recanted their decision to abandon PostScript. Something > about howls of rage from quarters high and low... Another way to look at this is that TrueType gave Apple the appropriate leverage they needed with Adobe, and Apple quit pushing Adobe after they got what they wanted. There is also the question of the viability of TrueImage. Apple still needs Adobe, but they wanted to make sure that Adobe understood that they needed Apple, too. > 10. The capabilities of TrueType (except for 8. above) have been provided > by PostScript for many years now. ... ATM and TrueType both create bitmaps on the fly and both are integrated into the QuickDraw font system. Right. But, what about all the stuff you forgot to mention in point #8? Like the fact that TrueType is capable of emulating most of the existing font standards, or that it provides unprecedented control over hinting that makes it unnecessary to include low-res bitmaps. > 11. The capabilities of PostScript, on the other hand, have not yet been > matched by QuickDraw, even though the type capabilities have been brought > well up to date with TrueType. Sigh. Not everybody needs PostScript, as evidenced by the staggering ratio of non-PostScript to PostScript laser printers out there. > Amazing what greed will do, isn't it? Now we have TWO type standards to > choose from, even though every type house could and can produce to either. Yeah, and if you were shopping for a car, you could buy a 1978 Le Mans, or a 1991 Accord. So what? Things change. Old technology is replaced by new technology. And for the record, there were already *lots* more than just two type standards out there. > You the consumer benefit, right? Yeah, you benefit in higher prices because > of all this folderol. That's the long outcome. Where? What higher prices? Apple has _lowered_ the price of its computers. Everybody is offering special prices on fonts. Get a grip! -- Glenn P. Parker glenn@bitstream.com Bitstream, Inc. uunet!huxley!glenn 215 First Street BIX: parker Cambridge, MA 02142-1270
ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) (04/05/91)
In article <1707@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM> briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM (Brian D Diehm) writes: >Some facts: >1. PostScript is a page description language, which has incorporated in it >a very high order of graphic capability and very good outline fonts. Not quite. PostScript fonts are written in the PostScript language, but they are not "incorporated into" (i.e., part of) the PostScript interpreter. >4. Microsoft developed TrueType because Bill Gates was morally offended by a >non-Microsoft company making money. Well, that may be coloring it... TrueType was developed by Apple, not Microsoft. Apple licensed TrueType to Microsoft and received the right to use Microsoft's *TrueImage* PostScript clone in exchange. This apparently was a bad deal for Apple, since TrueImage has never been used in any printer and reportedly doesn't even work. >10. The capabilities of TrueType (except for 8. above) have been provided >by PostScript for many years now. Even ATM, which moved those capabilities >onto the screen, is now several years old and has been enhanced several >times. I'm pretty sure that ATM is no more than two years old. >Amazing what greed will do, isn't it? Now we have TWO type standards to >choose from, even though every type house could and can produce to either. >You the consumer benefit, right? Yeah, you benefit in higher prices because >of all this folderol. That's the long outcome. Do you have any evidence to back up this opinion? Are TrueType fonts more expensive than PostScript fonts? (Not that that would prove much at this stage, since TrueType is still new and it may take time for the price to go down.) Given that there are several utilities available for converting PostScript fonts to TrueType, I don't see how a large price differential could be maintained. I do know that, thanks to TrueType, you can now buy a $1300 list laser printer that does what only a $2600 machine could do before. I suspect that you can buy a lot of TrueType fonts for that $1300 difference.