jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) (08/03/88)
The Apple LaserWriter II NT[X] does not print the symbol font in bold type. Is there an Adobe downloadable font for symbol-bold and symbol-italic or are there any other solutions? Juri Munkki Helsinki University of Technology, Computing Centre, ... jmunkki@santra.hut.fi jmunkki@fingate.bitnet
isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) (08/05/88)
In article <15054@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes: >The Apple LaserWriter II NT[X] does not print the symbol font in bold type. >Is there an Adobe downloadable font for symbol-bold and symbol-italic >or are there any other solutions? Better be more specific on your System configuration, BUT I just tried it on a Mac Plus, System 5.0, Microsoft Word 3.01, and you're right. At least what it does print doesn't look bold. Looks the same as plain print except the spacing is quite messed up. Anyone have a clue? Ken Ken Hancock '90 | BITNET/UUCP: isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu Personal Computing Ctr Consultant | -----------------------------------+---------------------------------------- DISCLAIMER? I don't get paid enough to worry about disclaimers.
ho@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Alex Ho) (08/05/88)
In article <9677@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Ken Hancock) writes: >In article <15054@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes: >>The Apple LaserWriter II NT[X] does not print the symbol font in bold type. >>Is there an Adobe downloadable font for symbol-bold and symbol-italic >>or are there any other solutions? > >Better be more specific on your System configuration, BUT I just tried >it on a Mac Plus, System 5.0, Microsoft Word 3.01, and you're right. >At least what it does print doesn't look bold. Looks the same as plain >print except the spacing is quite messed up. Anyone have a clue? > >Ken > i seem to remember reading somewhere in adobe's literature that bold, italic, or italic-bold variants of symbol just don't exist. i guess that their logic is that people just don't need to embolden symbols. :-) alex --- alex ho university of california, berkeley ho@svax.cs.cornell.edu a lost eecs major (spending the summer at) cornell university
briand@tekig4.TEK.COM (Brian Diehm) (08/05/88)
>In article <15054@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes: >>The Apple LaserWriter II NT[X] does not print the symbol font in bold type. >>Is there an Adobe downloadable font for symbol-bold and symbol-italic >>or are there any other solutions? There simply IS no version of Symbol (or of Zapf Dingbats, for that matter) in anything but plain roman. The PostScript definitions simply do not exist, nobody has ever made them. Therefore, they are not included in your LW+ or equivalent. In PostScriptLand (somewhere in Silicon Valley), as in the LW, each variant of a typeface (bold, italic, etc.) is a separate "font", which is why the LW+ is sometimes noted as having 23 or so built-in fonts. When you specify a font and a variant, the Mac translates this to a specific font in PostScript that has the correct variants. Note that PostScript can support many more variants in this way than can the Mac, at least easily. For example, many Adobe typefaces have three weights, not just the roman and bold, but a semibold version as well. And then some Adobe faces don't have the full complement of weights, such as Carta, Benguiat, and others. Symbol is definitely one of these latter. In bit-map land (somewhere inside your Mac) a roman copy of a font is usually kept, and it is modified mathematically to simulate style variations. You CAN install variant bitmap fonts as well, and doing so will make your screen more accurate and will make Word output more accurate typographically. The penalty is that you suddenly are dealing with dozens of extra names of fonts in the font menu. The Mac is smart enough to use variant bitmap fonts if they are installed; if you select the roman version of a font and bold it, then the Mac automatically substitutes the bold version of the bitmap font for screen display. You can purchase the full set of bitmap equivalents for the LaserWriter Plus from Adobe for the mere price of $50. I believe that Adobe considers this a minimal "duplication overhead fee" for the three disks. Either Adobe is the only one who understands hidden costs and this truly represents duplication overhead, or everyone else is right and Adobe is way out of line. -- -Brian Diehm (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply) Tektronix, Inc. briand@tekig4.TEK.COM or {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand