[Am-info] Re: True-Type fonts "gone!"

[John J. Urbaniak]

Thanks, Marcus.  This was another enlightening discussion of the font issue.

Like most folks involved with PCs, I started off as a Microsoft supporter.  I
viewed Bill Gates as "one of us," geeky, technically savvy, and an all-around
good guy.

But my wife, who was involved in desktop publishing, told me what Microsoft did
to Adobe.  I thought to myself at the time, "Gates isn't what he appears to be.
He's not just a software lover, he's a greedy monster who refuses to let anyone
have their own niche, however small. He wants everything.  And he'll destroy
anyone who has anything he can't control, caring not a whit for their
livelihoods, their families, their friends, or their dreams.  He cares only for
himself."

I think that was around 1995 or so, maybe earlier.

Since then, I have eschewed everything Microsoft has done or said.  I'll not do
anything to support them, no matter what the personal cost.  Thank God, I have
my wife's full support.  She is willing to sacrifice with me to stand up and
defy this evil person.

John


Marcus de Geus wrote:

> In reply to a message from "Eric Mathew Hopper" <hopper@omnifarious.org>
> dated 2002-08-19 13:44:39 -0500 (Mon):
>
> Hi Eric,
>
> Sorry, another late/long reply. I hope I haven't broken the OT time limit.
>
> > Since TrueType is actually a standard that's widely supported and widely
> implemented
>
> In this case, it's an "industry standard", as in "Windows printer",
> "WinModem", "Windows-compatible PC chipset". A standard is something you
> arrive at or set, or that becomes accepted as such, for the common good, not
> to further proprietary success. Whatever you may think of Adobe, the only
> way PostScript became a standard was through its general acceptance by the
> printing industry because it was a very elegant solution (most good software
> is) with a future. As I remember it from reading somewhere (perhaps someone
> else can confirm this or correct me), TrueType was born out of Microsoft's
> refusal to come to terms with (and subsequent animosity towards) Adobe over
> licensing fees for PostScript/Type 1, coupled with Bill's perception (which
> still holds true, thanks to the guiding hand from Redmond) of the PC as a
> second-rate graphical display system that would require too much effort to
> bring it up to scratch. So, in true MS fashion, rather than put in some
> effort, a second-rate option was pushed to become the "industry standard".
> Sadly, thanks to monopolist tactics, "widely supported/implemented" is far
> from synonymous with "high-quality".
>
> > with no people threatening suits over it...
>
> Not yet, but who knows... <g>
>
> > I would find an education on why one format was better than the other to
> be elucidating though.
>
> If you want to know more about the two different typeface systems (and
> others), ask Google or any other search engine for a match on e.g.
> "TrueType, Type 1, versus". There's lots of relevant info around (and some
> not so).
>
> I have added some more personal observations below.
>
> My reason for preferring the Adobe typeface system is that to me the whole
> concept of TrueType, i.e. that of bloating typeface definition files with
> proprietary output device software, stinks. I maintain that a typeface
> definition (like any data file) should contain the bare essentials (in this
> case for defining a typeface), and nothing else. Special formatting tricks
> (resolution adaptation, anti-aliasing, whatever) should be left to the
> output device system to ensure that the software (the typeface definition
> and page layout) remains independent of the hardware (the output device),
> thus ensuring forward compatibility. But then, Microsoft weren't (and still
> aren't) concerned with such trivialities as forward compatibility. Their
> objective was to make sure TrueType looked better on the average user's
> screen of the time, no matter how awful the result on paper or future
> display systems would be.
>
> When I create a PostScript file, I can view it on-screen, send it to my
> local printer (as in "HP LaserJet 4M"), or mail it to my local printer (as
> in "person who operates a printing business"), and each time the output will
> be of the highest available quality -- and all using the same file.
>
> BTW, PostScript does not always require proprietary (i.e. expensive)
> hardware solutions for hardcopy output systems. Many software systems
> (GhostScript, NextStep, OS/2) include a PostScript interpreter that will use
> local printer drivers to produce pretty good output results on many
> different types of raster printers. Mind you, the quality of the end product
> in this case is determined to a large extent by the quality of the drivers
> -- and we all know what they can be like.
>
> While I'm on the subject, let me dispel a myth. Type 1 fonts are not
> expensive. Granted, some companies (Adobe included) offer fonts (or rather,
> typeface sets) that cost a bit of money, but if you look closely, you'll
> find that they are worth every penny, simply because they offer extremely
> high quality. If you're a professional printer (which I'm not, BTW), you
> simply cannot afford to buy lesser offerings. This is not to say that other
> outfits do not offer high-quality fonts, but they too will expect you to pay
> for their work. Even so, some companies offer pretty good typeface sets for
> very little money. A decade ago, one of my best buys ever (apart from the
> couple of Adobe fonts I have) was the InfiniType/InfiniType Plus set. For a
> few dozen dollars this included not only hundreds of typeface families (some
> of them very useful, some for incidental use only, some very beautiful,
> some, let's say, interesting, but all of them of very high technical
> quality) in both Type 1 and TrueType versions, but also a DOS scaling engine
> (which at the time came in pretty handy) and a manual with a comprehensive
> explanation of typeface design as well as some useful hints on good typeface
> use and text formatting.
>
> If people want fonts for free, they should look for real freeware, but they
> should also be prepared to accept significant quality penalties, either in
> the form of reduced character sets (not a big problem in many cases) or in
> the form of crappy design or coding. The time and effort wasted in sifting
> through the rubble to find the few acceptable -- in some cases extremely
> good -- ones is what others pay Adobe and other typeface suppliers to avoid.
>
> On the subject of litigation (or at least, threatening suits), if InfiniType
> were still around today, I am pretty certain that they too, like Adobe and
> URW (many of whose products IT licensed, BTW), would be taking action
> against the unauthorized distribution of their products. Remember, we're
> talking software here, and software of a kind that involves a lot of
> painstaking work to get it right -- like all good software. These typefaces
> were never released as freeware; they are the companies' way of earning
> money. Sadly, the inclusion of "free" typefaces (some of dubious quality at
> best) with many leading word-processing packages appears to have led many
> people to believe that all typefaces are, or should be, available for free.
> Nevertheless, the right to appropriate copyrighted material (also known as
> stealing someone else's product) applies as little to typefaces as it does
> to music or computer programs. If you want fonts (or music, or computer
> programs) for free, look for freeware. Good typeface designers tend to get
> paid for their skills, so good typefaces tend to cost money.
>
> Regards,
>
> Marcus de Geus
> --
> marcus@degeus.com
> http://www.degeus.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Am-info mailing list
> Am-info@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/am-info