Xref: utzoo comp.windows.ms:2417 comp.fonts:1247
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!trwind!venice!ries
From: ries@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM (Marc Ries)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.ms,comp.fonts
Subject: ZSoft SoftType vs. Ami Pro (Problem/Warning)
Message-ID: <617@venice.SEDD.TRW.COM>
Date: 31 May 90 17:46:39 GMT
Reply-To: ries@venice.sedd.trw.com (Marc Ries)
Distribution: usa
Organization: N/A
Lines: 45

Here is a warning for users of Ami Pro thinking about using Zsofts
new SoftType font generation system:

   > I doesn't work correctly with Ami <  Even though the Zsoft box
     specifically mentions Ami Professional as a "supported" system.

I was using SoftCrafts WYSIFonts to install HP LaserJet-compatible fonts
and Windows screen fonts with decent results.

I just purchased SoftType (1.0) because of the nice windows interface
(and the amount of fonts provided) and installed it (actually replacing
the limited fonts I already had).

Immediately after using it, I noticed that none of the "justified" 
paragraphs would justify.  If was as if the .pfm files were not getting
read correctly or (more likely) were not getting produced correctly
(although the control panel font database does not about the .spf
files)  I also noticed in experimentation (still in process) that what
SoftType says is "X" point fonts, SoftCraft says is "X+1" (ie, 10
points = 11 points).

I spent some time trying to find a solution, but finally called up
Zsoft.  Their initial response was, "Yes, we know that SoftType has
a problem with Ami but we don't know what the problem is.  Would you
provide up with printouts from the previous working fonts and the 
new SoftType fonts.  We have a new release coming out in two weeks
and would like to find a solution."

If any net readers have pointers or clues, please let me know.
Basically what I plan to do is take one typeface produced via
SoftType and then compare the performance with the same SFP
installed via SoftCraft WYSIFonts.

<FlameOn>
What really burns me is that this is the second, unrelated, software I
have purchased recently that purported, via the advertising on the
software box, to support and/or work with certain systems/peripherals.
And did not.   Soft Warehouse (where I bought them) used to have a
policy of accepting software for return if disatisfied, now they will
only take it back if the media is defective (for exchange, not
refund) -- because of "legal reasons".  It can be done (letters, threats,
etc.), but it's a pain-in-the-a**.  Effectively, it's the software
purchaser who is screwed for the fraudulent and/or defectiveness of the
software, not the manufacturer. So much for truth in advertising!
<FlameOff>