Prev: Are Indesign files interchangeable between Macs and PCs without any hassle?
Next: Ripping DVDs with Chapter Marks
From: J.J. O'Shea on 26 Mar 2010 07:45
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:48:49 -0400, Duncan Kennedy wrote
(in article <EG4oAhCR4eqLFwnP(a)btinternet.com>):

> In message <cgzjmthpzs-03492F.22393723032010(a)news.simnet.is>, Martin-S
> <cgzjmthpzs(a)lzrpqi.net> writes
>> Nowadays you should be able to not only use PC fonts on the Mac, but
>> also Open Type fonts for cross-platform compatibility. That won't help
>> with legacy files though.
>>
> I wish. I have a couple of font families bought at some expense several
> years ago for a contract with a very large multi-national . These are
> listed as Type I and were used with Freehand / Illustrator. They are
> .PFB / .pfm format - and they simply are not liked by my new Macs. I
> gather they may work with Quark but I don't use that - and I know I can
> get an application to convert them - at a price. Fortunately I still
> have XP and Vista boxes.

OS X is supposed to be able to use, out of the box, the following types of
fonts:

TrueType (Mac OS 9 and earlier); these will be based on the resource fork of
the file, and are being phased out 'cause resource forks are about to become
a thing of the past. They don't usually have an extension.

TrueType (Mac OS X); these are based on the data fork and behave exactly the
same way that Windows TrueType does. They usually have a .dfont extension.

TrueType (Windows); these are data fork fonts, and usually have a .TTF or a
..TTC extension. Warning: some Windows .TTFs behave as though they were
actually OpenType. Almost. This can cause confusion. TrueType in general
almost certainly will start to be phased out in the near future.

OpenType (OS X and Windows); they usually have a .OTF etension, and deliver
superior performance. Most newer .OTFs are Unicode-based. This is a Good
Thing.

PostScript Type 1 (Mac OS and Windows); on the way out, even faster than OS 9
TrueType. _Most_ PS Type 1 fonts work perfectly well with OS X. _Some_ PS
Type 1 fonts are an unmitigated disaster.

Do NOT try to use plain bitmaps or PostScript Type 3 fonts with OS X. _Some_
bitmaps will work, but not very well. PS Type 3 fonts won't work. Note that
there is a rather considerable difference between PostScript _Type_ 1 and
PostScript _Type_ 3 on the one hand and PostScript _Level_ 1, _Level_ 2, and
just plain 3 on the other. PS _Type_ 1 is a type of font; PS _Level_ 1 is a
version of the PostScript page-description language.

One of the better, though not cheaper, font conversion utilities is
<http://www.fontlab.com/font-converter/transtype/>. For a very long time I
used Ares' FontMonger. (I got it well over a decade ago. It would convert
between bitmap (if you had sufficient bitmap sizes available, typically at
least half a dozen between 10 and 24 point), TrueType (Mac), TrueType
(Windows), and PS Type 1 and it would do so quickly and easily. Version 1 had
some problems; version 1.05 was a free update that fixed many of them; Adobe
bought the company a short time before version 2 was supposed to come out,
and lo! it's been over 15 years and v2 still is nowhere to be seen. Gee. I
wonder why.) FontMonger, like all other Classic apps, bit the dust with Leo,
so far as my main Macs are concerned. It's still on my old eMac which runs
Tiger, alongside all my other Classic apps. TransType works quite well,
though.



--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

From: Martin-S on 26 Mar 2010 08:03
In article <hoi6o20ohi(a)news2.newsguy.com>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to(a)but.see.sig> wrote:

> PostScript Type 1 (Mac OS and Windows); on the way out, even faster than OS 9
> TrueType. _Most_ PS Type 1 fonts work perfectly well with OS X. _Some_ PS
> Type 1 fonts are an unmitigated disaster.

I hadn't seen any problem reports prior to SL though:
<http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2136944&start=0&tstart
=0>

I guess for most it's not an issue, but if you for instance bought the
complete Adobe Type Library (for approx. 10,000 $) a few years ago,
you'll likely be miffed.

--
Martin
From: Duncan Kennedy on 26 Mar 2010 11:45
In message <hoi6o20ohi(a)news2.newsguy.com>, J. J. O'Shea
<try.not.to(a)but.see.sig> writes
>On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:48:49 -0400, Duncan Kennedy wrote
>(in article <EG4oAhCR4eqLFwnP(a)btinternet.com>):
>
>> In message <cgzjmthpzs-03492F.22393723032010(a)news.simnet.is>, Martin-S
>> <cgzjmthpzs(a)lzrpqi.net> writes
>>> Nowadays you should be able to not only use PC fonts on the Mac, but
>>> also Open Type fonts for cross-platform compatibility. That won't help
>>> with legacy files though.
>>>
>> I wish. I have a couple of font families bought at some expense several
>> years ago for a contract with a very large multi-national . These are
>> listed as Type I and were used with Freehand / Illustrator. They are
>> .PFB / .pfm format - and they simply are not liked by my new Macs. I
>> gather they may work with Quark but I don't use that - and I know I can
>> get an application to convert them - at a price. Fortunately I still
>> have XP and Vista boxes.
>
>OS X is supposed to be able to use, out of the box, the following types of
>fonts:
>
>Do NOT try to use plain bitmaps or PostScript Type 3 fonts with OS X. _Some_
>bitmaps will work, but not very well. PS Type 3 fonts won't work. Note that
>there is a rather considerable difference between PostScript _Type_ 1 and
>PostScript _Type_ 3 on the one hand and PostScript _Level_ 1, _Level_ 2, and
>just plain 3 on the other. PS _Type_ 1 is a type of font; PS _Level_ 1 is a
>version of the PostScript page-description language.
>
Thanks for the excellent run-down on font types - very useful. I guess
the font family I had trouble with is one of the "renegade" Type 1 PS -
it was bought from Adobe some years ago and the two file in Windows
fonts have the .pfm .and . PFB extensions.
>

--
Duncan K
Downtown Dalgety Bay
From: Rowland McDonnell on 27 Mar 2010 07:05
Tim Streater <timstreater(a)waitrose.com> wrote:

> real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
> > Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > And there is no way that one could argue that Peter C isn't snidely
> > > > attacking me when he repeatedly claims - very upsetting, this one - that
> > > > *I* say that I'm clinically deranged
> > >
> > > You have claimed that you have a form of Aspergers.
> >
> > Indeed - hardly a derangement, though. Just normal human variation.
> >
> > And that is only one of the things I've explained - it's hardly the
> > central problem I've got, is it?
>
> So what is the central problem you've got then?

In this newsgroup, my central problem is the vicious abusive culture
that's grown up making it socially acceptable here to bully Rowland with
barrages of vile personal abuse.

Peter C. is probably the centre of it, now I think about it: Peter C. is
my central problem here, I think. His unremitting abusiveness towards
me, his refusal to stop making posts that are intended to cause me a
great deal of personal upset, that's the biggest problem I've got.

If only he'd stop.

Rowland.

--
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org
Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
From: J.J. O'Shea on 27 Mar 2010 07:51
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 05:58:35 -0400, Tim Streater wrote
(in article <timstreater-7F7898.09583527032010(a)news.individual.net>):

> In article
> <1jg0aw8.1yqg3e25jwwavN%real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid>,
> real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid (Rowland McDonnell) wrote:
>
>> Peter Ceresole <peter(a)cara.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig(a)flur.bltigibbet.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And there is no way that one could argue that Peter C isn't snidely
>>>> attacking me when he repeatedly claims - very upsetting, this one - that
>>>> *I* say that I'm clinically deranged
>>>
>>> You have claimed that you have a form of Aspergers.
>>
>> Indeed - hardly a derangement, though. Just normal human variation.
>>
>> And that is only one of the things I've explained - it's hardly the
>> central problem I've got, is it?
>
> So what is the central problem you've got then?
>
>

He's a paranoid schizo.

--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Are Indesign files interchangeable between Macs and PCs without any hassle?
Next: Ripping DVDs with Chapter Marks