🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10532@ut-emx.UUCP> nedludd@ut-emx.UUCP (charles s. geiger, esq.) writes:
>The font looks nicer (especially the italics, which no longer run
>into unitalicized words), but it changes the spacing of words in
>old files (well, at least one old file, which had bold and italics
>in it), both on-screen and printed out, which is unacceptable.
>
>My confusion is this:  since both of these are screen fonts for
>Times, shouldn't they space the words identically?  I mean, screen
>fonts are approximations of printer fonts and shouldn't dictate
>what prints out, right?
>
Wrong.  Welcome to the wonderful world of pseudo-postscript.
The LaserWriter is postscript, but the Macintosh is not.  What
the Mac sends to the LaserWriter is strictly dependent on which
screen fonts you have installed.  The Adobe FONDs are slightly
different than the Apple screen fonts.  This causes the spacing
to change on old documents.

>Another question:  assuming that this inconsistency between screen
>fonts is here to stay, is there a way to have both screen fonts
>accessible at the same time (I guess by somehow renaming one of
>them)?  I realize this is probably impossible, because both screen
>fonts tie into to the same printer font.  Now what I do is keep
>both fonts in Suitcase and open and close one or the other
>depending on which one I need.  But this is a pain.

No way that I know of too have both screen fonts.  Besides, the
Adobe are better....

>Thanks for any answers you may have.

stupid inews line
stupid inews line
stupid inews line
stupid inews line
stupid inews line
stupid inews line
stupid inews line
stupid inews line

Ken Hancock  '90                   | BITNET/UUCP/
Personal Computing Ctr Consultant  |   INTERNET:  isle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER?  I don't get paid enough to worry about disclaimers.