Font Book Won't Recognize New Fonts

Reading the posts again (and still a bit confused) this problem is exactly what I have got, but the big difference is that I know the fonts work as they are mine and have used them for years. This also blows the theory about the font files not being the right kind as they work in 10.3 on my other mac at home.

I have two 'Postscript type 1 outline font' files and three 'Font.mdimporter Documents' (as the info given in OSX Finder)
In OS 9.2 they work fine and on my mac at home running OSX 10.3 they work fine. I would only have added them into Font Book as I have tried here (via the '+' button or drag and drop).

I am totally confused and very annoyed that I have had to revert to OS9 to do design work that is almost a daily accurance from this client.
What was the point in spending my hard earned cash on new system software!!!

Sorry me again, but I think I have cracked it!!

If you drag and drop the font files that are not working into the fonts folder in your Mac OS 9 System folder, it adds it to the list in Font Book.
It worked for me so hope it helps.

Think this is mad though, as it is a long way round of doing it and do not remember doing this is 10.3?

Just wanted to say that even if you disagree with each other a little, this has been a very interesting and informative thread to all of us font ignoramuses out there. Don't get cranky with each other even if you aren't in total accord - the dialogue is actually teaching "the rest of us" a great deal!

So thanks to all of you.

Cheers

Rod

Hello SharonZ,

First, let me say that my intention is not to argue or get in a fight with you. It's pretty apparent that you're no dummy when it comes to fonts. It may be more a matter of us using different descriptions for the same thing. So in effect, agreeing, but not seeing that we mean the same thing. I see that Mark Douma has stepped in to sort things out. If anyone here can sort through and explain the inner workings of fonts in detail, he's the one.

I don’t understand the differentiation you’re making. Just that some bitmapped fonts were fonts unto themselves, and others were meant as outline font companions? The file types, and management under earlier OS’s were the same. I don’t know what HUGE difference you’re talking about.

I think the difference is in what each of us is referring to as a bitmap font. On one hand, there's the old (and I mean like 20 years ago or more) bitmap fonts. Some versions used to come with helper programs that you ran to build whatever point sizes you needed of a type face you purchased. It would then take the old, slow computers (by comparison) of the time hours to build full sets of a font at every point size you entered as a high resolution bitmap font. And that was just for one style, such as italic. You'd have to run it again to build your needed bold and other styles at all point sizes. The main thing here being that these fonts were high resolution (300 dpi if I remember correctly) fonts that were intended to be used as your printing font.

On the other hand, you've got the bitmap portion of a PostScript font. Yes, bitmap is bitmap, but in this case they are all only 72 dpi sets. Intended to be used for screen display only. A system will use the bitmap images for printing if the outline font is missing, but you also then get the expected results from a 72 dpi font image. Very choppy, jaggy fonts on your printed image. Especially at larger sizes, like over 16 points.

The big difference between them being that the old bitmap fonts were designed to be used for final output, at print ready resolution. PostScript bitmap screen fonts are not. So when someone says they're talking about bitmapped fonts, my interpretation is always that they mean the old high res type. All other fonts in use today are actually vector information that is rasterized either at a RIP or by the printer's engine.

Re the "helper programs taht built faces"... Hmm, interesting, but, was that on the PC end of things? On the Mac side, 20 years ago (<sigh>, I was there at the time), 72 dpi was the best you could do all round, because that was the printer output, too. The 300 dpi you're referring to was the resolution of the first LaserWriter, but I never ran into a utility that converted the bitmaps to high-res output, or produced different sizes or weights; I can only imagine how long that would have taken. But, again, I'm wondering if that was on the PC side of things anyway. Printing a non-designed bitmap certainly caused the jaggies, but also at small sizes if those small sizes were not a friendly multiple (basically, doubled or halved) of the designed size. (e.g. if you had 10 and 12-point sizes, 5, 6, 20, 24, and maybe even 48 worked okay, but not 9 or 16 or 20. Ah, the good ol' days).

As an interesting aside, and just to confuse everyone <g>, let us note that in the end all fonts you're printing are bitmapped by the device - a 1200 dpi laser printer is still printing dots, just really tiny ones!!

- - - - -
While our discussion of bitmaps certainly contained definition problems (and I can't say "high resolution bitmap" with a straight face!), the real difference, and the problem that needs resolution for both the original post and other readers... have you checked out that font.mdimporter document thing on your end? Since I have consistently reproduced what I originally described, and have since checked it on more machines than just my own half-dozen (in addition to one that I keep on OS9 for just such experimentation), I'm curious/anxious to know what files show up as mdimporter kinds in your Finder windows, and how the non-suitcased older fonts are identified.

"If you drag and drop the font files that are not working into the fonts folder in your Mac OS 9 System folder, it adds it to the list in Font Book.
It worked for me so hope it helps. ...Think this is mad though, as it is a long way round of doing it and do not remember doing this is 10.3?"

As I mentioned in answer to MarkDuoma, the mdimporter files work from the Classic folder (as do straight bitmapped-only suitcases which are otherwise only supported as companions to Type 1 printer fonts). I hadn't had a chance to see if you dumped them there, would they work with the outline font, or are they only accessing the bitmapped font and not coordinating with the Postscript font.

Does the Postscript font file have to be in the Classic folder, too? I have found that the Type 1 file/suitcase file combo doesn't have to be in the same folder in order to work together when you're using any of the OS X fonts folders or a user-created library.

Mostly I'm wondering why this worked in 10.3 for you without a problem... maybe the fonts were in the Classic folder and you didn't realize it? Oh well, I guess in a way it doesn't matter because it's what works or not in Tiger and later that counts now. I didn't get serious about OS X font research until Tiger, being way too annoyed with Apple's whole cavalier approach to fonts post OS9. (not that I'm enamored of the approach now, but I could no longer ignore the issues).

BTW, f you have access to an OS 9 machine, you can put these mdimporter files back into regular suitcase files and then you can use them wherever on your X machine. Not that 7-9 ever let you create an empty suitcase file for that purpose; the intelligent design approach was to make you duplicate an existing suitcase, then empty it out...

Hmm, interesting, but, was that on the PC end of things?

Yes, we had to run those on a PC and then copy them over to the RIP for use in film output. This was back when Scitex Imagers and **** Chromacoms were king in color and retouching. Photoshop 1.0 was still 7 years away when I started doing image editing for a living.

let us note that in the end all fonts you're printing are bitmapped by the device - a 1200 dpi laser printer is still printing dots, just really tiny ones!!

Yup, everything at the end is raster. Doesn't matter where it started from, but I obviously don't need to tell you that. 🙂 The imagesetters even back then were 2540 dpi.

have you checked out that font.mdimporter document thing on your end?

I finally moved up to Tiger just a couple of days ago. Had to wait until Creo got software to me that worked with 10.4.x for my scanner before I could move. One of the first things I did practically was see how it defined PostScript fonts. I get two entirely different things depending if Font Book is on the system or not.

Whether Font Book installed is installed or not, bitmap suitcases of PS fonts are described in a Get Info dialogue as "Font suitcase". The printer portion of the font is described as "PostScript® font". Since I use Suitcase X1 for font control, I always completely remove Font Book from my systems. Once removed then the outline portion of the font is described as "Font.mdimporter Document". So I've been crabbin' about the wrong thing all along. I deserve a slap for that.

Anyway, it's the vector outline portion of the font that's being defined as "Font.mdimporter Document", not the bitmap suitcase. Not at all what I expected to discover.

MarkDouma®... dFontifier?

Hi Sharon,

That's a program Mark wrote that very quickly converts .dfonts to an OS 9 style suitcase font (not to be confused with a PostScript suitcase of bitmap fonts). Rather easy to do actually since they're both TrueType fonts. You can get it here.

And just to add to the confusion:

Tiger shows both a PostScript suitcase of bitmap fonts and an OS 9 suitcase of TrueType fonts both as "Font suitcase". It makes no attempt to differentiate the two. And to make things even more difficult, a .dfont is also described as a "Font.mdimporter Document", same as a PostScript outline printer font. Again, with no clue which it is if you don't already know before hand. Though most .dfonts are marked as such with the extension.

Sorry, one more correction. .dfonts are identified as "Data-fork font suitcase" in a default install of Tiger. It's after you've removed Font Book that it becomes identified as a "Font.mdimporter Document".

That's a program Mark wrote that very quickly converts .dfonts

Right, I know the program; just wanted to know if he was that Mark...

Tiger shows both a PostScript suitcase of bitmap fonts and an OS 9 suitcase of TrueType fonts both as "Font suitcase". It makes no attempt to differentiate the two.

Right. That was one of our communication problems; it was what I said in my first note to you, and what you tried to talk me out of <g> by explaining the difference between TrueType and bitmap fonts, when there is no difference, for the file Kind, between the two in OSX. In fact, in both earlier systems and under X, a suitcase can even hold a mixture of TrueType and bitmap, in the same family or in multiple families. (A way around the old 128-file limit for fonts - packing suitcases tightly).

It actually makes some sense that there's no differentiation between bitmap and TT suitcase files, since they're really on their way out. The Type 1 duo is biting the dust, too, to be replaced by OpenType.

- - - - -
Now, everyone should wrap their heads around this: If you put Font/DA Mover on your hard drive (I don't think you even have to run it), the suitcase files change their kind to "Font/DA Mover document" and change their icons to suitcases! But the only way to "unpack" a stuffed suitcase on X machines is to run FDAMover under Classic.

Readers: gauge your age in real or in Mac user years by whether you know about Font/DA Mover, last used in System 6!
- - - - - -

If you don't have Font Book on your drive, all font files come up as mdimporter files (suitcases, ttf's, otf's etc) , but your note references dfonts and outline fonts as that, without mentioning whether you have Font Book or not?? Normally, dfonts are kind "Data Fork TrueType font" and outline fonts are "PostScript Type 1". It's odd to have a mix of standard Kind reports and no-FontBook-around Kind labels. In fact, you particularly mention suitcases of Kind "Font Suitcase." Hmm.. Did you perhaps get rid of Font Book inbetween perusing file descriptions? Offhand, I can't think of anything else that would mislabel all the files of certain font types but not the others...

Hmm.. Did you perhaps get rid of Font Book in between perusing file descriptions?

I think I removed it after installing Suitcase X1. Don't remember though. To check what happens to the file types, I boot to an external drive that has a minimal install of Tiger on it, which I use to do maintenance on the main drive. That one has Font Book on it. So that drive shows me what it thinks the file types are with Font Book being the only font manager on the drive. Then I boot to my main drive and see how the exact same fonts are defined with Suitcase X1 installed and Font Book removed.

The Type 1 duo is biting the dust, too, to be replaced by OpenType.

Probably so. Although I think it will be for quite some time. Type 1 PS fonts still work just fine, so no one's feeling the push to replace them. Especially since there's still applications that don't recognize, or handle OpenType fonts well yet. Also, except for designers, most people have no use for a font with 65,000 glyphs.

It has been reported though that Adobe is, or already has killed the little used Multiple Master fonts. The only place you find them nowadays are those installed my Acrobat, since it uses them for its menus and such. Otherwise, they're pretty much already dead.

Right, I know the program; just wanted to know if he was that Mark...

Oh. Yes, he is.