From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: No TrueType Fonts in OS/2 2.1 ?!
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 01:37:17 GMT

In article <96122@rphroy.ph.gmr.com> rbotimer@max.ct.gmr.com (R Douglas Botimer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan7.193312.16367@clark.dgim.doc.ca> tennesen@mars.dgrc.doc.ca  
>(Andy Tenne-Sens) writes:
>
>Some stuf deleted:
>
>:I'm disturbed, however, that a recent posting stated that IBM has decided
>:not to support TrueType scalable fonts.  Does anyone out there know if
>:this is so?  Will IBM depend on Adobe for scalable-font capability?
>:If I run OS/2, will I still be able to use Word for Windows 2.0 and
>:some kind of scalable fonts?  Will I still be able to embed equations
>:and graphics into my documents?
>
>more deleted:
>
>Whywouldn't IBM depend onAdobe, along with many other companies?  


	Because Adobe charges a *fortune* for their fonts (which are
	about as high-quality that you can get, but there's a lot more
	cheap Truetype fonts for the normal user than there are cheap
	ATM fonts.. God save us from things like Atech "multiple" fonts).


>TrueType is  
>is pure Microsoft.


	Truetype is pure Apple.  The only thing Microsoft about truetype
	is the implementation (16 bit instead of 32 bit as in Apples
	system 7) under Windows 3.1.  Truetype is a trademark of Apple and was
	developed by Apple.  Supposedly MS and Apple worked together on
	it ("Royal") but from everything I've read this was "apple skill,
	some MS money". 

	Truetype is also damn good.  The quality at small point sizes
	for the included fonts is higher than the quality you get with
	ATM2.5, ATM2.0, MoreFonts, FastFonts and Bitstreams new Facelift 
	for WordPerfect (all but the last running under Win31 on an HP
	LaserJet III or 4--though it's hard to tell on the 4 without a
	magnifying glass).

	Speaking of which, I'm still waiting on a proper print driver
	for OS/2 for the LJ4.  For Windows, I got a nice driver that
	works flawlessly and included TrueType screen fonts.  If you
	use the internal fonts, it's blazingly fast (first time I've
	seen an HP type actually get 8 pages per minute _for real_ except
	for using Courier or Line Printer).  


>It seem to me that IBM would rather pay royalties to Adobe  
>than to Microsoft.


	This is plain dumb.  IBM is paying royalties for a slow,
	outdated form of ATM.  Poorly spent money, if you ask me.  
	It's roughly equivalent to buying Word 1.0 for PM--buying the
	inferior product doesn't encourage improvement.

	Are their any plans to implement the SuperATM type 
	multiple-mastering in the OS/2 version--or offer it
	as a seperate product?


>Looks to me like Microsoft developed TrueType to keep from  
>paying royalties to Adobe and Apple.


	Apple/MS also developed a page description language--TruePage--
	that works pretty well.  The WinMaster800 800dpi laser printer
	uses the Truepage Postscript-emulation program to print postscript
	rather than licensing Postscript or a PS clone.


>October 27 PC Magazine has an informative  
>bit on fonts.  Looks to me like ATM is better technology too.


	Output to a Laserjet or compatible is several orders of magnitude
	faster via TrueType than it is via ATM under OS/2 (32 bit, too).
	I think this changed under ATM2.5 (which may or may not download
	soft fonts, instead of full page bitmaps, which is what makes 2.0
	such a DOG).



-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy