Macworld Forums: Safe fonts: Conquering the cross-platform divide - Macworld Forums

Post your comments for Safe fonts: Conquering the cross-platform divide here

What about Lucida Grande (and the other Lucida fonts)?

Lucida Grande is included with Apple's Safari Web browser on both platforms, but Windows NT by itself doesn't install Lucida Grande. Same for any fonts not listed above. There's a helpful chart of fonts included with each version of Windows at <http://www.kayskreations.net/fonts/fonttb.html>.

Of course, another way to make sure a document sent to a Windows (or Linux) computer looks like it does on your Mac is to make a PDF of it; OS X's PDF engine will embed the necessary font(s). The concerns in this article apply only if you need to send someone a document they can then open and work on -- and of course, you'll also need to make sure they have the same application you do (e.g. MS Word, Open/NeoOffice).

As for OS 9 docs, I have a lot of old SimpleText docs done in Geneva; whenever I open one, I convert it in TextEdit to Helvetica (I refuse to use crappy Arial) and save it as a new document.

As for replacing older fonts with OpenType versions, I'm wondering: how can you tell? Many OpenType fonts have the .ttf extension, just like older TrueType fonts.

For instance, I have a bunch of old PageMaker docs done with PostScript Palatino that I want to bring into OS X. So what current Palatino should I use? (I'd as soon not spend $hundreds on the commercial OpenType Palatino family, so long as free alternatives exist.) Is the Palatino that comes from Apple with iWork an OpenType font? I guess it'd have to be, since it contains so many Unicode glyphs; but Font Book says it's "Kind: TrueType". I know it's not the same as the Linotype Palatino that's included with Windows -- which doesn't work right in OS X (line spacing is weird).

Unfortunately, and despite the effort to simplify everything with OpenType, font technology remains a jungle. Especially in 10.6, where I understand (haven't bit the bullet yet) you can't count on any pre-OpenType fonts working right.

All "solutions" have their merits. The responsibility lies with the combination of Microsoft and Adobe, and Apple to an extent. Regardless, there is no real solution apparent anywhere. Also, there is no one who is interested in solving it. The end result, in most cases, is ultimately the purchase of even more fonts that will solve the problems (for about five years), and then require more fonts. More money spent=the real goal. And the result:

The "solution" above makes it clear that the desired effect is MEDIOCRITY. Please, Arial is a knockoff of Helvetica, and not a good one, either. Maybe we can go back even further and use Helvetica, one of 100 variants of Times, and one of about 50 variants of Zapf Dingbats, or the MS alternative of Monotype Sorts. SINCE WHEN IS MEDOICRITY A DESIRED GOAL?

I am a mono-spaced Courior and Palatino man myself.

No [censored]. That's all I use if I can help it.

I just need to figure out how to use my recently downloaded fonts in Microsoft Word. I have a Mac OS X 10.5.8, and no help articles have been able to tell me how to make fonts that have been installed in Font Book appear in my list of fonts in Word.

"For instance, I have a bunch of old PageMaker docs done with PostScript Palatino that I want to bring into OS X. So what current Palatino should I use?"
If the original Palatino is Mac-version, use it if you still have access to it. It should work fine. Otherwise, you just have to choose a version that suits best and work the re-flow. I guess you have to recreate the design in InDy anyway (possibly using a converter).

Ah, fonts, the never ending story!

My personal favorite, for reasons of readability, is Verdana, especially in my web browsers. If you prefer a serif font, Times or Georgia will do. They look good in print (the hard copy kind). Comic Sans is a bitch to read in extended text; it should be used primarily for titles, headings or short blurbs. Others have already panned Arial; like Helvetica it's overused and boring. Trebuchet is OK, but its tight kerning can make it more difficult to read.

Verdana, Times and Georgia are good enough for the average user in everyday work and offer decent cross platform compatibility. I don't agree that they are mediocre; what they are is utilitarian. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

It's true, though, they don't offer much in the way of style. But then if you want style, you need to take fonts more seriously, start collecting interesting fonts and learn to use a decent font management app. Font Book is a good place to start. But as your design sense improves (if it does), so will your need for more robust control over your fonts. That, however, is a discussion for another day.

"Font" is a four-letter F-word.

...if you get my meaning.

I always use Tahoma. It's been in Windows since 2000 (its the default screen font) is distributed with Microsoft Office and has been included in OS X since 10.5 Leopard, and most Mac users have updated to 10.6 or 10.5.

I found this an Interesting and informative article and discussion.
I would use Book Antiqua for my novels by choice, but it does not have 'Smart Quotes', so I use Georgia. If my characters write notes to each other I use different Scripting Fonts for each character, and place the notes in the text like pictures, and this creates problems for myself.

Ballantines is no longer included in Font lists by Default.
Amaze might be there but Word for Mac 2011 running on Mountain Lion refuses to see it; {Not solved that one yet.}
And certain other lovely scripting fonts won't embed in .pdf files.

If anyone has any suggestions about Amaze, I would be interested to read them, I've tried several 'solutions' in other Forums, but without success.

Interesting comment about Tahoma, BernharddeKok.
It is my Bete-Noir. I have never KNOWINGLY used the font, and for decades I have striven to rid my Work and Computers of the infernal thing, but it still crops up to haunt me when least expected.