What fonts are equivalent on different platforms?

In article <m2irm2cp84.fsf (AT) Sherm-Pendleys-Computer (DOT) local>,
Sherm Pendley <sherm (AT) Sherm-Pendleys-Computer (DOT) local> wrote:

axlq (AT) spamcop (DOT) net (axlq) writes:

The same is true for the bitmap images of the Mac displays. The Mac
used obviously had some Windows fonts on it.

If you're referring to the so-called "web fonts" from MS, those are shipping
with the OS these days - have been since Mac OS X 10.0, IIRC. With the near-
universal adoption of OS X, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a Mac user
who *doesn't* have those fonts.

Actually, these are included as part of the optional Internet Explorer
package, not as part of the OS proper.

Andre

--
n.b. there are no monotremes in my email address

VK wrote:

Andy Dingley <dingbat (AT) codesmiths (DOT) com> wrote:
'Lucida Console' is a fine typeface as an alternative to Courier,
so use it. Only the Windows users (most of them) will see it, but
it isn't harmful to the Macs.

Keeping in mind that 1) Windows does make a difference between
generic "mono" and "monotype" font-family: Foo, Bar, mono will fail
to Courier while font-family: Foo, Bar, monotype will fail to Lucida
(if installed)

"Monotype" is the name of a font-foundry; not a font, not a family of
fonts. They invented the world's first mechanical typesetter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotype_Corporation


--
Jack.

axlq wrote:

You're confused. The fact is, simply, that Arial looks a lot more
like Helvetica than any other sans-serif font not called "Helvetica."

Arial isn't actually a knock-off of Helvetica (which is an original Gill

design, I think). Arial resembles Helvetica, but was designed as a new
face. There are numerous copies of Helvetica that were specifically
meant to look as close to the copyright original as possible, such as
"Swiss", "Geneva" and so on.

--
Jack.

SteveSomebody wrote:

Andreas Prilop wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, axlq wrote:

Second:
Arial looks no more like Helvetica than Terence Hill looks like
Franco Nero.


Wrong! Arial is a copy of Helvetica see this...
http://central.kaserver5.org/Kasoft/...nts/Arial.html

That's like saying that if you put the word "Rolex" on a watch then
it's a Rolex. Arial is NOT even a "copy" of Helvetica, it's an
imitation. The original Arial used Helvetica's metrics so that
theoretically it could be used to replace Helvetica and avoid reflow
differences. With the later expanded character sets, even this is no
longer true.

For some detailed differences,see:
http://www.ms-studio.com/articlesarialsid.html

- Character

In article <e957h2$t19$1$830fa7a5 (AT) news (DOT) demon.co.uk>,
Jack <mrdemeanour (AT) nospam (DOT) jackpot.uk.net> wrote:

Arial isn't actually a knock-off of Helvetica (which is an original
Gill design, I think). Arial resembles Helvetica, but was designed
as a new face.

Yes, I know. Helvetica is a print font. Arial is a video display
font, basically Helvetica optimized for on a pixelized display at
small font sizes. That's why you have a simpler-geometry G, why the
tail of the capital R is less vertical, why the lowercase c is more
open, etc.

-A

axlq wrote:

No. I'm referring to the bitmap screenshots, which are OS independent.

Even these aren't entirely OS independent because of how Macs handle
gamma differenty to PCs. This is very often enough to make otherwise
identical fonts (or even screenshots of fonts) look clearer and
brighter on a Mac.

In article <dvtio3-d6g.ln1 (AT) ophelia (DOT) g5n.co.uk>,
Toby Inkster <usenet200606 (AT) tobyinkster (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Here's something that may be of use:

http://buzzword.org.uk/fonts/

Thanks. That is helpful. -A

Jack wrote:

"Monotype" is the name of a font-foundry; not a font, not a family of
fonts. They invented the world's first mechanical typesetter.

Historically must be very true, but practically IE recognises two
families: mono and monotype (Courier-like and Lucida-like
respectively). These two generic families are also build into
Dreamweaver, so this details shows up here and there across the Web.
Say Google News interface seems to be made on Dreamweaver (surprise!
:-) where the font-family is simply monotype (w/o particular fonts), so
I saw everything in Lucida instead on Courier which I prefer - until I
set CSS override. I'm ready to accept that it's a mistake made either
by Dreamweaver or by IE years ago and now too late to fix for legacy
issues.

VK wrote:

IE uses for monospace Lucida wherever installed, even if Courier New is
also presented.

Firefox uses for monospace Courier New / Courier, even if Lusida [sic] is
also installed.

Although what you state may be the defaults for these two products,
both can be USER defined, and therefore cannot be relied upon.

Firefox: Tools / Options / General / Fonts & Colors

IE: A couple of places - Tools / Interent Options Fonts /
(Mine says Courier New, and I don't remember changing it, because I
don't normall use IE at all)

- Character

VK wrote:

Jack wrote:
By "where", do you mean Dreamweaver, or Google News interface? The
css for Google News seems to use the generic family "monospace",
but there's no trace of either "mono" or "monotype". As far as
Dreamweaver is concerned, I couldn't possibly say; I use Notepad.

As usual, your post is somewhere between terminally confusing and
downright misleading.

I'm letting people to point to someones rude mistakes: what sweeter
than that? And what a great stress releaver! :-))

I'm not trying to relieve my own stress, and I don't mean to be rude.

People come to this group for information, and if the information
provided is inaccurate then people will be misled. You have posted
misleading information repeatedly, and been pulled up on it each time.
Why don't you simply learn to check your facts before posting?

No doubt you have plenty of experience, at least within certain domains;
maybe you could help people - but that won't be possible until you get
your facts straight.

You must have realised by now that people are looking out for
inaccuracies in your posts. It's not personal; it's just that in an
information-based newsgroup like this, inaccuracies *ought* to be
corrected. You just seem to provide an awful lot of inaccuracies.

--
Jack.