amf@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Andrew Fountain) (05/03/90)
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >The more I fiddle with Windows Write, the more disappointed I am. >As a previous posting by me indicates, a number of the fonts sizes >are just WRONG. Helvetica 36 point is the right height, but far >too narrow. >Did Microsoft test the fonts on anything but a LaserJet and a >PostScript before shipping? I have done a lot of testing with Windows Write and am fairly sure I know what is going on with the fonts. Simply put, Write asks the current printer what fonts are exactly supported, and offers these for choice. (Exactly means correct size and aspect). When a font is chosen the printer driver is asked how it will print it. This information is then used to work out how to display and format the text. A 36 point font is usually created by doubling up an 18 point font, but it is possible that the resulting font would exceed the 64k maximum font size. In this case the font height, but not the width, is doubled. amf@ecs.soton.ac.uk Dr. Andrew Fountain Tel: +44 703 592831 Dept of Electronics and Computer Science Fax: +44 703 593045 University of Southampton Telex: 47661 SOTONU G Southampton SO9 5NH England -- amf@ecs.soton.ac.uk Dr. Andrew Fountain Tel: +44 703 592831 Dept of Electronics and Computer Science Fax: +44 703 593045 University of Southampton Telex: 47661 SOTONU G Southampton SO9 5NH England
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (05/05/90)
In article <2681@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, amf@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Andrew Fountain) writes: > cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: # #The more I fiddle with Windows Write, the more disappointed I am. # #As a previous posting by me indicates, a number of the fonts sizes # #are just WRONG. Helvetica 36 point is the right height, but far # #too narrow. # # #Did Microsoft test the fonts on anything but a LaserJet and a # #PostScript before shipping? # # I have done a lot of testing with Windows Write and am fairly sure I # know what is going on with the fonts. Simply put, Write asks the current # printer what fonts are exactly supported, and offers these for choice. # (Exactly means correct size and aspect). When a font is chosen the # printer driver is asked how it will print it. This information is then # used to work out how to display and format the text. A 36 point font is # usually created by doubling up an 18 point font, but it is possible that # the resulting font would exceed the 64k maximum font size. In this case # the font height, but not the width, is doubled. # # amf@ecs.soton.ac.uk Dr. Andrew Fountain Well that's a bit of rip! It means that all the font choices that are nominally available aren't really available. It would also explain why changing from 180x180 to 360x180 resolution causes the fonts to be even more compressed in width. I hope 3.0 fixes this! Does WinWord do any better about this? -- Clayton E. Cramer {pyramid,pixar,tekbspa}!optilink!cramer Politicians prefer unarmed peasants. Ask the Lithuanians. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Disclaimer? You must be kidding! No company would hold opinions like mine!
phil@pepsi.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (05/05/90)
In article <3572@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: |Well that's a bit of rip! It means that all the font choices that |are nominally available aren't really available. It would also |explain why changing from 180x180 to 360x180 resolution causes the |fonts to be even more compressed in width. I was playing around with Write and an HPLJ and I wonder if the problem isn't related to how you are chosing your fonts. In the Character Fonts menu, you can either select a font and size from a list or type in a size that you want. This second choice tends not to be too good. You can display it on your screen but if it's not in the list, it's not supported by the printer and I guess Windows doesn't do a good job of faking it. I don't think it would be too easy to fake it anyway. Winword doesn't seem to do a lot better, nor does Excel. One solution of course is to get a Postscript printer. In any case, your output will look much better if you chose a size from the selection offered to you instead of telling it a size. -- Phil Ngai, phil@amd.com {uunet,decwrl,ucbvax}!amdcad!phil Government: organized crime with an attitude.
altman@sbgrad12.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) (05/05/90)
Another answer is to get the Bitstream Fontware 3.0 Kit for Windows which allows you to generate your own fonts for Windows Apps. It comes with versions of Times Roman (Dutch) and Helvetica (Swiss) and costs $25 with a coupon that comes with Windows. You generate both the screen and the printer fonts in whatever size you want (6pt and up) and whatever combination of (bold or italic) and whatever printer Postscript, PCL, 9 pin dot matrix or 24 pin Dot matrix. The fonts are wonderful and it is so nice to actually be able to have WYSIWYG for real since you determine which font sizes you produce. The only drawback is that fonts take up a great deal of Disk Space. But I suffer. Also, the fonts do work with Windows 3. (jaltman@ccmail.sunysb.edu)
aaron@jessica.stanford.edu (Aaron Wallace) (05/06/90)
In article <8645@sbcs.sunysb.edu> altman@sbgrad12.cs.sunysb.edu (Jeff Altman) writes: > >Another answer is to get the Bitstream Fontware 3.0 Kit for Windows >which allows you to generate your own fonts for Windows Apps. It comes >with versions of Times Roman (Dutch) and Helvetica (Swiss) and costs >$25 with a coupon that comes with Windows. You generate both the >screen and the printer fonts in whatever size you want (6pt and up) >and whatever combination of (bold or italic) and whatever printer >Postscript, PCL, 9 pin dot matrix or 24 pin Dot matrix. Given the few printer fonts that do come with Windows, for most printers I'd say Bitstream is very useful. However, it may be best to "tweak" the Bitstream kit a bit for best performance. In my case, I wanted to generate fonts for an Epson 9 pin printer in the 144x280 mode. It cranked out a set of 72x140 fonts. Some poking around in the Bitstream configuration files (they're all ASCII-readable--what a wonderful idea!) showed that the 72x140 number was hard-wired (I think the hdpi and vdpi fields are relevant, although I'm not sure) in the EPSON9 file. I changed these fields, re-installed the device file, and it generated the correct font sizes--quite nicely, too. One thing, though--I'd recommend not generating screen fonts for the Dutch and Swiss. Winword (and others, I'd imagine) will use the default Windows screen fonts, which have been "tuned" to look good at low resolution. The fonts Bitstream makes are readable, but a bit jagged. The exception is if you need fonts for sizes Windows doesn't have; then it's probably best to make them. For those low on memory/speed, it also helps to make only the regular (i.e. non-bold, italic) version--Windows can make the bold/italic version on the fly from the normal font. Although this sounds slow, it's much slower waiting for Windows to read in each separate font as it repaints the screen. For printer fonts, by all means make all that you have room for. On a different note, has anyone had any experience with the Atech Publisher's Powerpak for Windows? I saw it in action at a show recently, and I have a demo disk--it prints much better quality output than the Windows driver for the Epson 9-pin printers (at least my EX-800). The Powerpak, for those who don't know about it, includes drivers for 300 printers and three *on the fly* scalable fonts (a Helvetica, Times Roman, and Courier, including thin, hollow, and bold/italic combinations). Screen fonts are not on-the-fly scalable, but can be made at any time from within Windows. The price of the kit is $79; what's best, though, is that additional fonts are only $30 (for 3). Although all I had was a demo, speed seemed acceptable. Aaron Wallace