Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!huxley!glenn From: glenn@huxley.huxley.bitstream.com (Glenn P. Parker) Newsgroups: comp.fonts Subject: Re: Mac font info summary wanted Message-ID: Date: 4 Apr 91 14:59:34 GMT References: <1991Apr03.210401.21786@ux1.cts.eiu.edu> <1707@tekig7.MAP.TEK.COM> Sender: glenn@huxley.UUCP Reply-To: (Glenn Parker) Distribution: comp Organization: Bitstream, Inc. Lines: 79 In-reply-to: briand@tekig5.PEN.TEK.COM's message of 4 Apr 91 01:12:01 GMT 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