Received: by nummer-3.proteosys id <01C19443.92DBF5B4@nummer-3.proteosys>; Thu, 3 Jan 2002 11:44:09 +0100 Return-Path: <@vm.gmd.de:LATEX-L@DHDURZ1.BITNET> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.92DBF5B4" x-vm-v5-data: ([nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil][nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil nil]) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 x-to: LATEX-L%DHDURZ1.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: Re: RE:magsteps Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1992 01:51:00 +0100 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Don Hosek" Sender: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" To: "Rainer M. Schoepf" Reply-To: "LaTeX-L Mailing list" Status: R X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 511 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.92DBF5B4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable -i have been attending to the correspondence -on magsteps etc, wondering if it has anything -to do with me. -but i will make the following few observations: -1. i understand the NeXT implementation of TeX -creates the fonts it requires as it goes along. -that might be one way of finding out what people -use. of course, if i was solely a latex user i would -find that the fonts i needed were the fonts that -latex uses (after all, i don't have that much choice -range). Hogrude, man. With NFSS, families can be loaded easily although not directly by the user without a prepared style option and even without it there's always (the slightly abominable) \newfont. But really I find that LaTeX users beyond selecting a family tend not to worry about individual fonts which to my mind is for the best. If you want to worry about messy typesetting details, why not use WordImperfect? -2. as a user of the CM Type 1 PS fonts, i tend not -to be too worried about filling in various magsteps -any more. i cannot detect the difference between -cmr8 at 9pt and cmr9. i suspect that one point -increments are not actually required. with the incoming -`multiple mastering' technology, adobe are providing -a way of interpolating between (say) cmr5 and cmr17 -in a way which should be reasonably intelligent. that -still leaves a problem with (say) cmr25. Although multiple masters leave a messy problem when it comes to the TFM issue, n'est ce pas? -3. why would anyone be so crass as to want to -mix helvetica (excellent for signing airports in -switzerland) and times (excellent for newspapers -printed on poor quality paper at high speed)? Because they're too cheap to have anything beyond the basic fonts on the laser printer and I'm not about to buy PS fonts for a multinational corporation. -4. does anyone actually use stone or lucida (apart -from computer science people). i ask this seriously. -at the bcs ep fonts meeting they were rather -derided as of little interest to the typographer -in the street. Stone is likely to submerge in a few years if not sooner as a typographic abomination. More people buy the Adobe Wood Type sets than Stone according to their best sellers list in the last Font & Function. The same sales records apply to Lucida. The number 1 font is Industria, a rather dense compressed sans-serif. Lord knows why. But back to the topic at hand, Lucida [unbright] is a bit heavy for normal use. Lucida Bright is much better but is licensed exclusively by Scientific American so don't look for that on your hard disk anytime soon. -dh ------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.92DBF5B4 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Re: RE:magsteps

-i have been attending to the correspondence
-on magsteps etc, wondering if it has anything
-to do with me.

-but i will make the following few = observations:
-1. i understand the NeXT implementation of = TeX
-creates the fonts it requires as it goes = along.
-that might be one way of finding out what = people
-use. of course, if i was solely a latex user i = would
-find that the fonts i needed were the fonts = that
-latex uses (after all, i don't have that much = choice
-range).

Hogrude, man. With NFSS, families can be loaded easily = although
not directly by the user without a prepared style = option and even
without it there's always (the slightly abominable) = \newfont. But
really I find that LaTeX users beyond selecting a = family tend not
to worry about individual fonts which to my mind is = for the best.
If you want to worry about messy typesetting details, = why not use
WordImperfect?

-2. as a user of the CM Type 1 PS fonts, i tend = not
-to be too worried about filling in various = magsteps
-any more. i cannot detect the difference = between
-cmr8 at 9pt and cmr9. i suspect that one = point
-increments are not actually required. with the = incoming
-`multiple mastering' technology, adobe are = providing
-a way of interpolating between (say) cmr5 and = cmr17
-in a way which should be reasonably intelligent. = that
-still leaves a problem with (say) cmr25.

Although multiple masters leave a messy problem when = it comes to
the TFM issue, n'est ce pas?

-3. why would anyone be so crass as to want to
-mix helvetica (excellent for signing airports = in
-switzerland) and times (excellent for = newspapers
-printed on poor quality paper at high speed)?

Because they're too cheap to have anything beyond the = basic fonts
on the laser printer and I'm not about to buy PS = fonts for a
multinational corporation.

-4. does anyone actually use stone or lucida = (apart
-from computer science people). i ask this = seriously.
-at the bcs ep fonts meeting they were rather
-derided as of little interest to the = typographer
-in the street.

Stone is likely to submerge in a few years if not = sooner as a
typographic abomination. More people buy the Adobe = Wood Type sets
than Stone according to their best sellers list in = the last Font
& Function. The same sales records apply to = Lucida. The number 1
font is Industria, a rather dense compressed = sans-serif. Lord
knows why. But back to the topic at hand, Lucida = [unbright] is a
bit heavy for normal use. Lucida Bright is much = better but is
licensed exclusively by Scientific American so don't = look for
that on your hard disk anytime soon.

-dh

------_=_NextPart_001_01C19443.92DBF5B4--