Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004
From: Phillip M. Jones, CE.T. (pjones_at_kimbanet.com)
Date: 11/15/04
- Next message: A Thorburn: "page order"
- Previous message: Gillis: "Where can I get a "custom" dictionary for Word 2004, Mac?"
- In reply to: Elliott Roper: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Next in thread: JE McGimpsey: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Reply: JE McGimpsey: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2004 11:51:37 -0500
Elliott Roper wrote:
> In article <OQsQmznyEHA.2568@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, Phillip M. Jones,
> CE.T. <pjones@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Clive Huggan wrote:
>>
>>>On 14/11/04 12:16 PM, in article e5pBJeeyEHA.2624@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl,
>>>"Phillip M. Jones, CE.T." <pjones@kimbanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>><snips>
>>>
>>>>there is a ratio that at work usually
>>>>
>>>>Mac = 72 dpi
>>>>PC = 96 dpi
>
> <more snippage>
>
>>If Mac has switched to 96dpi, I am unaware of it. I use a ATI Radeon Pro
>>9000 Card to use my Mitsubishi DiamondPoint NX86LCD DVI monitor and as
>>far as I an tell it 72dpi.
>
>
> You were probably still in nappies. Somewhere about 1986. ;-)
>
> This 72/96 only applied to bitmap fonts. Nobody, but nobody, uses
> bitmap fonts any more.
> Ever since, with Postscript, Truetype, OTF, whatever, there is no such
> thing as dots per inch. And not only that, *those* inches were
> fictional anyway.
> The font size in points, of which there are more or less 72 in every
> real inch, is the distance between the top of ascenders (think lower
> case b) and descenders (think y) plus an historical little bit. The
> historical little bit was when type was set in hot metal. The font size
> was what you measured with a micrometer with a slug of type in its
> jaws.
> Slugs were whole lines of type cast in some daft tin lead zinc alloy.
> OK, I exaggerate and over-simplify, but that was part of the history.
>
> Nowadays the pixels per inch on a screen are all over the shop. This
> Powerbook of mine has 1024*768 pixels on a 12.1 diagonal screen.
>
> Lemme see now. sqrt(1024^2+768^2)/12.1 = 105.785123966942 pixels /inch
> Mitsubishi Diamond Point NX86LCD is 1280*1024 and 18.1" viewable
> Shoving the same pythagoras at it yields 90.563525126122 pixels /inch
> You will find the same thing over on the dark side. Every screen is
> different.
>
> When it comes to printing, everyone is using the same inches and points
> and the same document with the same typeface and the same margins with
> the same printer drivers *should* look exactly the same, no matter how
> 'magnified' the screen picture is. The size of the on-screen imaage is
> utterly irrelevant to the point size. For instance, displaying the
> exact same file on my Powerbook and your gorgeous Mitsubishi Lancer
> EVO-6 turbo would show your characters as being almost 17% larger than
> mine. And we are both on Maccas.
>
> After all that, some fonts *look* bigger than others, both on-screen
> and printed. Fonts whose x-height is large compared with their font
> size - in other words - the ascenders and descenders are relatively
> short, such as Times New Roman, look a lot bigger on the page than say,
> Adobe Garamond or Zapfino to choose a ridiculous example.
>
> If your associate is substituting fonts, that might explain why the
> printed page seems to have bigger type, but it has nothing to do with
> 72 or 96 bits per inch. That went out with Mac Paint.
>
>
>>I have a friend that's in a Association I am in and we work together on
>>Asssociation matters (we are officers) and stuff he sends show up larger
>>that should be for me. And if I send him something he usually has to
>>change font size.
>>
>>If he types something in 9 point it looks 12 pt to me.
>>
>>May be the Va Hummidity 8-).
>>
>>Although sometimes he send s stuff with Shiruti(?) font (i'd love to
>>have it just to see what it looked like, i've tried to locate a place to
>>download on ms website. OSx can use MS TT fonts natively.) Most of the
>>time he sends in TNR.
>
>
> Finally, I wouldn't trust TNR on Windows and Mac to be utterly
> identical. They should be awfully close, but I'm willing to bet there
> is more than one version of the font out there with slightly different
> metrics just to frustrate Word users trying to preserve pagination
> across printers and platforms. Remember that heaps of printers have TNR
> resident. That will come to bite you in some programs (not Word) that
> leave the Postscript in the printer to break left justified lines.
> Other printers may turn your type into ransom notes, because their font
> width tables differ from yours.
>
I use the version of TNR installed by the system (OSX.3.6).
I assume (yes I know the little reference about assume.) He use the
version shipped with his system.
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling 616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868 Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |pjones@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet --------------------------------------------------------------------------- If it's "fixed", don't "break it"! mailto:pjones@kimbanet.com <http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm> <http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm> <http://vpea.exis.net>
- Next message: A Thorburn: "page order"
- Previous message: Gillis: "Where can I get a "custom" dictionary for Word 2004, Mac?"
- In reply to: Elliott Roper: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Next in thread: JE McGimpsey: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Reply: JE McGimpsey: "Re: Document Format changes in Word 2004"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
