Re:Font Manager & Big Fonts

[ericlob@cris.com (ericlob)]

Nathan Mates <nathan@visi.com> wrote:
>ericlob <ericlob@cris.com> wrote:
>
>>After looking at it, my thoughts were that the best solution would
>>be to add new functions to the font manager toolset (InstallFont2,
>>etc) and patch Pointless. People without TrueType fonts probably
>>wouldn't print larger anyway.
>
>   You're still running up against the problem noted above that you'd
>need to patch the FontManager, *and* any app that wanted to use
>extended functions. If the Font Mangler internally uses 8-bit values
>for font size, then apps almost certainly do so also, and you'd have
>to do major surgery to get any existing app (AWGS and GraphicWriter
>III are about the main two GS programs used for DTP) before they'd
>support that. And that'd involve everything from loading & saving the
>slightly larger files, etc. Not a pretty sight, really.

Actually, you'd only need to patch Pointless. The App sends the font size
to Pointless which then renders the font at various multiples of that size
depending on the printer resolution. The maximum size with this method
would be 255 pt but that would probably be enough for most purposes (and
certainly an improvement over what we have now).

>>No, I meant why didn't Apple just add the new code to the toolset rather
>>than having TS2 patch them out.
>
>   TS2/3 tend to have patches if the toolset is in ROM on one or both
>machines. If the actual toolset is purely rambased, then they can be
>updated by simply tweaking the ToolXYZ file on disk, but if it's in
>ROM on one, and RAM on the other, you'd have version-specific code in
>the toolXYZ file, while it's supposed to be the job of TS2/TS3 to
>handle that.

Ok, that makes sense I guess, although I rather they'd just rewritten the
toolset. I wonder how much time the System wastes patchings tools when it
loads them up.

>   If something is going to change a lot, dump it in RAM, or you'll
>have lots of problems later.

Plus RAM is faster anyways.

>   You're still running into the consideration that one of the best
>and most stable GS word processors is Appleworks classic v5.1.

Appleworks does a decent job of straight word processing (and has the
advantage of actually being able to print at >300dpi) but it's rather
limited for more than rudimentary layout.

>Most GS word processors can be buggy, flakey, and feature-poor compared
>to a decked out AW5.1 with a good macro set and addons. Sure, AW classic
>is less point-and-drool WYSIWYG (like the GS's oddball aspect ratio can
>ever do WYSIWYG text and graphics at the same time), but it's more
>productive, stable, and feature rich.

:). It's faster anyway.

>    With almost-necessary addons like Pointless showing up later in
>the GS's life (as seen by commercial companies making word
>processors), GS's being underpowered in the RAM dept (necessary for
>DTP), and Apple's 'Word processor in a box' of TextEdit both sorta
>muscling out most competition and being highly flakey, the GS DTP
>scene could definitely be a lot better.

Yeah, granted. I'm not looking for Pagemaker level functionality here, but
pushing the poor GS to do some of this stuff has it's own merits ;).