🚀 go-pugleaf

>In article <15054@santra.UUCP> jmunkki@santra.UUCP (Juri Munkki) writes:
>>The Apple LaserWriter II NT[X] does not print the symbol font in bold type.
>>Is there an Adobe downloadable font for symbol-bold and symbol-italic
>>or are there any other solutions?

There simply IS no version of Symbol (or of Zapf Dingbats, for that matter)
in anything but plain roman.  The PostScript definitions simply do not exist,
nobody has ever made them.  Therefore, they are not included in your LW+ or
equivalent.

In PostScriptLand (somewhere in Silicon Valley), as in the LW, each variant of
a typeface (bold, italic, etc.) is a separate "font", which is why the LW+
is sometimes noted as having 23 or so built-in fonts.  When you specify a font
and a variant, the Mac translates this to a specific font in PostScript that
has the correct variants.

Note that PostScript can support many more variants in this way than can the
Mac, at least easily.  For example, many Adobe typefaces have three weights,
not just the roman and bold, but a semibold version as well.  And then some
Adobe faces don't have the full complement of weights, such as Carta, Benguiat,
and others.  Symbol is definitely one of these latter.

In bit-map land (somewhere inside your Mac) a roman copy of a font is usually
kept, and it is modified mathematically to simulate style variations.  You
CAN install variant bitmap fonts as well, and doing so will make your screen
more accurate and will make Word output more accurate typographically.  The
penalty is that you suddenly are dealing with dozens of extra names of fonts
in the font menu.  The Mac is smart enough to use variant bitmap fonts if they
are installed; if you select the roman version of a font and bold it, then the
Mac automatically substitutes the bold version of the bitmap font for screen
display.

You can purchase the full set of bitmap equivalents for the LaserWriter Plus
from Adobe for the mere price of $50.  I believe that Adobe considers this a
minimal "duplication overhead fee" for the three disks.  Either Adobe is the
only one who understands hidden costs and this truly represents duplication
overhead, or everyone else is right and Adobe is way out of line.


-- 
-Brian Diehm     (SDA - Standard Disclaimers Apply)
Tektronix, Inc.
briand@tekig4.TEK.COM   or  {decvax,cae780,uw-beaver}!tektronix!tekig4!briand