🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8711@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> hastings@scam.berkeley.edu (Mark Hastings
) writes:
>       After looking at the recently posted Adobe screenfonts (from the sumex
>archive), I found that I preferred them to the standard Apple screenfonts.
>But before I start using them full-time, I wanted to ask a few questions:
>  1.   Why are they different?  Politics?  Artistic differences?
Adobe includes fonts for not just the roman face, but also italic, bold-italic,
and bold. There are some political differences as to why Apple doesn't
distribute our version of the screen fonts. People seem to like ours better for
spacing, etc...

>  2.   Which is more accurate in terms of the actual spacing on a 300dpi page?
I'd say ours are. But then I'm biased ;-)

>  3.   Why did Adobe drop the 9 point fonts?  Ok, a few of the fonts have
>         a single 9 point resource, but only in the basic style...
Adobe has 10 point and up fonts. There is no 9 point because in layout work
it isn't used much and 9 point can't produce a 'nice' enough screen font.

>  4.   When I used the Font Harmonizer utility from Suitcase II,
>         which supposedly fixed up some resources in the Adobe fonts, the
>         suitcase file still contained resources for the semi-bogus 7, 8 & 9...
These are old versions of the screen fonts. Newer versions should just contain
10, 12, 14, 18, and 24 point fonts.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bezanson                          bezanson@adobe.com
Adobe Systems

Standard Disclaimers apply. These are my words and all mistakes are mine too ;-)