Embedded fonts have been in Microsoft Word since 1997. Yes you are really 'up on the technology'. *Still laughing so hard my side hurts*
To answer your questions... Yes Word embeds the entire font (or you can also tell it to embed only the characters in use) Both options are available, and yes Word was the first application to support this.
And no, the document does not become read only, geesh.
Is anyone here actually in the technology industry? Even if you hate Word or Microsoft, you should at least know what the 'competition' is doing and have some concept of what they are doing.
Do you want to know more about Microsoft Word? It does a lot of neat things...
How about, did you know Word was the first application that 'invented' the concept of select and format. (You know, highlight a word and then click to change the font, color, etc.)
Funny how people forget about the Microsoft innovations that everyone else steals. Maybe they should be more like Sun and Apple (the companies people in here apparently love) and patent everything they create so their competitors can't ever use them.
Word also invented underline spell check, Text Drag and Drop, Autotype and about 100 other things that everyone takes for granted because they have been copied throughout the industry.
I can guarantee you, no matter what OS or Word processor you are using (created in the last 15 years) that it isn't copying several Microsoft Word inventions.
PS. I love how everyone is coming to Adobe's rescue for PDF support. Especially considering how much Acrobat costs, and their strangle hold on Postscript technologies in the late 80s and early 90s. Can you say, BIG LICENSE FEES MAKE ADOBE HAPPY?
And that link was 5 years old? Wow, you are up on the technology....
Word has (and was the first document technology) to have font embedding of Truetype fonts to ensure the document does not have formatting or font inconsistencies.
I think it is a bit irresponsible for them to NOT support NT, and I just don't by the "too complex" architecture bit. --------
Um, for its time it achieved everything it was designed to do and even held C2 level security.
About them fixing it? Yeah, they already have twice, it is call Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server. Both of which meet the newer requirments of the market and security needs.
"An mind is like a parachute, it only works when open"
ICM and color matching has been a part of the Windows platform for almost 8 years. Where have you been? Our graphic house prefers PCs with Epson printers, as the proofs and onscreen work are picture perfect prior and ready to drop to the digital press.
If speed were really the end-all and be-all of graphic design (or computing in general) Apple would have died a long time ago and PC users would still be using DOS.
Windows 1.0 was announced at the same time Lisa was announced. I doubt the PC users would still be in a DOS world without the 'wonderful' Apple.
Do people really forget or just not know that Apple was relunctant to even add color to their precious Mac, citing it was a waste of resources back in 1985.
It wasn't until the Amiga and AtartST started to make a dent in the graphical market with color equipped motorola systems did Apple change their tune and reconsider bringing out a color Mac.
Oh yeah, Mac is such the innovator. (Only when forced to the edge of extinction) How many years did it take them to get a preemptive multitasking OS after IBM and Microsoft had REAL products back in 1992/1993? Almost 10 years? Wow, Apple, your innovation almost killed you that time.
All these neat new Mac toys I keep seeing are so scary "I can play music and print and it hardly stutters", NT users have been doing this since 1993. I remember having several Mod players runing and video back in 1992 and the system didn't miss a lick. (And this was on 486 technology)
MacOSX is a great achievement for Apple, but it still isn't the cat's meow, no matter how much anyone loves it. When you hear your background Mp3s stuttering along while trying to print, think to yourself, "If I was running XP or even 1996NT, this wouldn't be happening"
True, people also forget that with WindowsNT, 2k, and XP all of the Windows code is written in a portable language as well. It is a design requirement that was set by the NT team in 1992.
Whereas Win95,98,ME had lots of assembly for x32. (Which also begs the question of how the NT team produced a faster OS considering the additional overhead in the security and object layers as well it runs on top of the NT kernel)
The Win9x teams clearly weren't in the same class of programmer as the NT and XP teams as portable C++ code should not be able to outperform assembly optimized x32 code.
People here also need to not forget that Apple is a Hardware company 1st and a software company second. So of course Apple is going to tout their hardware and push it instead of optimizing their software base.
as your reply is longer than one sentence, I can see you're just another nit-picky, "has to be correct" nerd. To spend time reading your response would be a waste. ------------- Or basically, beyond your grasp of understanding. Sorry for thinking higher of you, it will not happen again.
Internet Explorer is just the interface to the HTML dlls that allow developers (like our company) to let Windows inherently render HTML pages.
Just like Windows can inherently render TrueType Fonts, Bitmaps, and other forms of media.
If you want to turn off the HTML capabilities in Windows, why don't you want to turn off its ability to display Bitmaps and Fonts?
Consistency, please.
Everyone thinks HTML is just used for browsing the internet. IE's engine was developed to have native HTML support in the OS, not to have a nice BROWSER in the OS. This is why many companies, including Netscape's AOL used the IE engine in their software for years.
People really don't get the IE thing do they?
It was a tool for developers first and foremost, the IE browser was just a nice addon that used the engine and became successful.
Microsoft didn't intend on IE becoming the standard Browser any more than people expect the 'native' browsers in the Linux variants to become the standard browser.
Oh wait, linux has built in browser engines, just like Microsoft Windows? Bad them.
And people complain about the Microsoft Upgrade Cycle.
Jump from one frying pan to a hotter one.
And I have downloaded close to 25 Updates and new features for WindowsXP for free in under a year. (Not counting security fixes which are automatically installed)
They will ride the 32bit horse as long as they can get away with it. This isn't a case of available technology, but what they milk out of the consumers.
I think AMD is taking the right road to the 64bit transition.
BTW, Don't for a second think Microsoft is not going to fully support the AMD 64bit platform. It is already there, just not officially released. So don't yell at Microsoft for crushing this technology.
Windows 2003 is already filled with AMD64bit binaries and once the AMD chips hit, there will be 64bit replacements for XP and add-ons to Windows 2003 Server to fully support it.
This is incorrect.
In WIndowsXP 2GB is reserved for the OS, yes; however, each process can use 2GB of space for itself, the 2GB per process is NOT Shared.
BTW It was nice the Linux finally broke the 1GB RAM limit with 2.4... This was quite a feat, especially considering NT has been able to do 4GB since 1992.
Geesh...
You can already buy the 64bit version of WindowsXP for Intel.
How can people be so behind the time and yet be the first ones to show how well informed they are.
Additionally, AMD 64bit support is already in Windows 2003 Server, although not fully supported officially. When the NDA lifts, I can show you the binaries specifically for the AMD 64bit chip on Windows 2003 Server.
Additionally, since the AMD chip works quite well as a 32bit chip, the necessity to move immediately to 64bit based apps is not a crucial except for large scale apps that need the additional addressible memory space. Windows 2003 Server can already handle several GBs of RAM and partitions of several exabytes, something we are still waiting for Linux and other FREE unix variants to be able to handle.
#1) This is an emulation layer, not a subsystem.
#2) Microsoft has made and continues to make a real UNIX subsystem that runs on the NT kernel that is 'independant' of WIN32 and Windows. Just as POSIX that shipped in NT. However they have not produced an updated version of this Unix for NT in a couple of years. If Microsoft wanted to they could make a FULL Linux subsystem that runs on top of NT, with the underlying NT features that would allow the Linux subsystem to communicate with other subsystems like WIn32 if they wanted to. If Linux really does one day rule the world, all Microsoft has to do is flip the switch and you can have LinuxNT instead of WindowsNT. Rumors are the Linux Subsystem is already in development and could be dropped on the market at any time.
Ok, lets hear it... The specs were taken from the marketing materials provided by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo by their representatives to our company last year.
I agree that it is a slick unit, and I have one. What I want is Nintendo to quit repacking the same core and innovate a new level of portable gaming. If they don't, then you will see PocketPCs and other portable handhelds taking the market from Nintendo.
Nintendo holds on to users with their name brand and quality of games. Take the GameCube for example, it can only do about 8 million Polygons a second, and yet it sells well when there is the PS2 that can do up to 75millon a sec, and the XBOX that can do up to 300million a sec.
I am talking about the core technology of the NT kernel. If you want to debate the Windows kernel that sits on top of NT then you would have a more solid argument. Until OSX can do native subsystems and has an object based kernel, then the NT debate could begin.
Everyone here sees WindowsXP(2k) as Win32, and totally miss the NT technology core underneath.
Microsoft could create a TRUE Unix or Linux subsystem that could sit on the NT kernel, just as they did with WIn32. This is not something any other consumer level OS can even fathom doing at this point.
As for usability, I still believe that XP is a better choice for consitency and ease of use. (My company actively participates in think tanks geared to User Interface design innovations) The OSX is a major advance for apple, but it still doesn't have many of the basic usability features that WindowsXP users take for granted.
And with the NT core under WIndowsXP, the performance of preemptive multitasking is second to none, including any Unix variant.
I know all about the TurboGrafix (actually it was a twin 8bit system). And NO I am not saying it is superior to the GBA, but they are in the same league of games and technology. GBA is only one generation ahead of stuff that was offered in 1991, and it even took them this long to offer a backlighted screen. Nintendo could be doing SO much more. Look at the Pocket PC devices, they have more CPU and graphics power than the GBA and even get reasonable battery life. A portable 3D chip in a handheld is not out of reach.
I am simply saying, it GBA SP is a nice machine, but I would like Nintendo to do more instead of forcing the same technology down consumers throats by offering colored cases, and now just adding a backlighted screen.
They should be updating the architecture faster than once every 7 years.
You argue this, and yet you bash Microsoft in the same post.
Windows is the number one OS not just because of Microsoft muscle, but because they offered stuff that no one else was offering at the time. A inexpensive GUI for the Intel PC. The reason they have held this lead is they continue to UPDATE the technology. WindowsXP is by far the most advanced consumer level operating system, and it comes straight out of the box.
I like your argument, but if you believe this ideal, then apply it to all parts of your life and don't pick and choose just to be fashionable.
I fail to believe battery constraints are behind the architecture of the current GameBoy devices.
The technology is already here, and the price point is also here.
I wasn't say the TurboGrafix was superior to the Gameboy, but the point was that it is somewhat in the same class. When other gaming devices have advanced so much, the GameBoy Advanced is more evolutionary.
Nintendo could do so much more with this platform and do full 3D gaming in a pocket device. The technology is there, and the price point is there, Nintendo is just failing to offer it.
I know how old the 16bit TurboGrafix is, and that limitations compared to the GameBoy, but that was not my point. Sorry for the confusion.
The problem with 'our' republic democracy is the stacking of electorial votes and congressional seats from southern states. That was set up during a time slavery was around and the landowners could could count their slaves as 2/3 a person's vote. Thereby increasing the the congressional seats and electorial votes allocated to these states that supported slavery.
Hence, the reason Gore won the election, and Bush was put in office.
Slashdot Mirror
OfficeXP - you're kidding right?
Embedded fonts have been in Microsoft Word since 1997. Yes you are really 'up on the technology'. *Still laughing so hard my side hurts*
To answer your questions... Yes Word embeds the entire font (or you can also tell it to embed only the characters in use) Both options are available, and yes Word was the first application to support this.
And no, the document does not become read only, geesh.
Is anyone here actually in the technology industry? Even if you hate Word or Microsoft, you should at least know what the 'competition' is doing and have some concept of what they are doing.
Do you want to know more about Microsoft Word? It does a lot of neat things...
How about, did you know Word was the first application that 'invented' the concept of select and format. (You know, highlight a word and then click to change the font, color, etc.)
Funny how people forget about the Microsoft innovations that everyone else steals. Maybe they should be more like Sun and Apple (the companies people in here apparently love) and patent everything they create so their competitors can't ever use them.
Word also invented underline spell check, Text Drag and Drop, Autotype and about 100 other things that everyone takes for granted because they have been copied throughout the industry.
I can guarantee you, no matter what OS or Word processor you are using (created in the last 15 years) that it isn't copying several Microsoft Word inventions.
PS. I love how everyone is coming to Adobe's rescue for PDF support. Especially considering how much Acrobat costs, and their strangle hold on Postscript technologies in the late 80s and early 90s. Can you say, BIG LICENSE FEES MAKE ADOBE HAPPY?
And that link was 5 years old? Wow, you are up on the technology....
Word has (and was the first document technology) to have font embedding of Truetype fonts to ensure the document does not have formatting or font inconsistencies.
I think it is a bit irresponsible for them to NOT support NT, and I just don't by the "too complex" architecture bit.
--------
Um, for its time it achieved everything it was designed to do and even held C2 level security.
About them fixing it? Yeah, they already have twice, it is call Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server. Both of which meet the newer requirments of the market and security needs.
"An mind is like a parachute, it only works when open"
I didn't miss your point. You seem to have missed mine.
#1) DOS apps do not necessarily run faster than Windows applications. This is a myth.
#2) I wasn't on a rant to bash Apple, but rereading my post, I can see why it seemed so. I apologize.
The Net Avenger
You have no idea what DRM is... And this isn't even worth debating.
ICM and color matching has been a part of the Windows platform for almost 8 years. Where have you been? Our graphic house prefers PCs with Epson printers, as the proofs and onscreen work are picture perfect prior and ready to drop to the digital press.
;)
Maybe you need a new printer?
If speed were really the end-all and be-all of graphic design (or computing in general) Apple would have died a long time ago and PC users would still be using DOS.
Windows 1.0 was announced at the same time Lisa was announced. I doubt the PC users would still be in a DOS world without the 'wonderful' Apple.
Do people really forget or just not know that Apple was relunctant to even add color to their precious Mac, citing it was a waste of resources back in 1985.
It wasn't until the Amiga and AtartST started to make a dent in the graphical market with color equipped motorola systems did Apple change their tune and reconsider bringing out a color Mac.
Oh yeah, Mac is such the innovator. (Only when forced to the edge of extinction) How many years did it take them to get a preemptive multitasking OS after IBM and Microsoft had REAL products back in 1992/1993? Almost 10 years? Wow, Apple, your innovation almost killed you that time. All these neat new Mac toys I keep seeing are so scary "I can play music and print and it hardly stutters", NT users have been doing this since 1993. I remember having several Mod players runing and video back in 1992 and the system didn't miss a lick. (And this was on 486 technology)
MacOSX is a great achievement for Apple, but it still isn't the cat's meow, no matter how much anyone loves it. When you hear your background Mp3s stuttering along while trying to print, think to yourself, "If I was running XP or even 1996NT, this wouldn't be happening"
True, people also forget that with WindowsNT, 2k, and XP all of the Windows code is written in a portable language as well. It is a design requirement that was set by the NT team in 1992.
Whereas Win95,98,ME had lots of assembly for x32. (Which also begs the question of how the NT team produced a faster OS considering the additional overhead in the security and object layers as well it runs on top of the NT kernel)
The Win9x teams clearly weren't in the same class of programmer as the NT and XP teams as portable C++ code should not be able to outperform assembly optimized x32 code.
People here also need to not forget that Apple is a Hardware company 1st and a software company second. So of course Apple is going to tout their hardware and push it instead of optimizing their software base.
as your reply is longer than one sentence, I can see you're just another nit-picky, "has to be correct" nerd. To spend time reading your response would be a waste.
-------------
Or basically, beyond your grasp of understanding. Sorry for thinking higher of you, it will not happen again.
Internet Explorer is just the interface to the HTML dlls that allow developers (like our company) to let Windows inherently render HTML pages.
Just like Windows can inherently render TrueType Fonts, Bitmaps, and other forms of media.
If you want to turn off the HTML capabilities in Windows, why don't you want to turn off its ability to display Bitmaps and Fonts?
Consistency, please.
Everyone thinks HTML is just used for browsing the internet. IE's engine was developed to have native HTML support in the OS, not to have a nice BROWSER in the OS. This is why many companies, including Netscape's AOL used the IE engine in their software for years.
People really don't get the IE thing do they?
It was a tool for developers first and foremost, the IE browser was just a nice addon that used the engine and became successful.
Microsoft didn't intend on IE becoming the standard Browser any more than people expect the 'native' browsers in the Linux variants to become the standard browser.
Oh wait, linux has built in browser engines, just like Microsoft Windows? Bad them.
Geesh.
And people complain about the Microsoft Upgrade Cycle.
Jump from one frying pan to a hotter one.
And I have downloaded close to 25 Updates and new features for WindowsXP for free in under a year. (Not counting security fixes which are automatically installed)
Geesh...
They will ride the 32bit horse as long as they can get away with it. This isn't a case of available technology, but what they milk out of the consumers.
:)
I think AMD is taking the right road to the 64bit transition.
BTW, Don't for a second think Microsoft is not going to fully support the AMD 64bit platform. It is already there, just not officially released. So don't yell at Microsoft for crushing this technology.
Windows 2003 is already filled with AMD64bit binaries and once the AMD chips hit, there will be 64bit replacements for XP and add-ons to Windows 2003 Server to fully support it.
With an NDA, I cannot say anymore.
This is incorrect. In WIndowsXP 2GB is reserved for the OS, yes; however, each process can use 2GB of space for itself, the 2GB per process is NOT Shared. BTW It was nice the Linux finally broke the 1GB RAM limit with 2.4... This was quite a feat, especially considering NT has been able to do 4GB since 1992. Geesh...
You can already buy the 64bit version of WindowsXP for Intel.
How can people be so behind the time and yet be the first ones to show how well informed they are.
Additionally, AMD 64bit support is already in Windows 2003 Server, although not fully supported officially. When the NDA lifts, I can show you the binaries specifically for the AMD 64bit chip on Windows 2003 Server.
Additionally, since the AMD chip works quite well as a 32bit chip, the necessity to move immediately to 64bit based apps is not a crucial except for large scale apps that need the additional addressible memory space. Windows 2003 Server can already handle several GBs of RAM and partitions of several exabytes, something we are still waiting for Linux and other FREE unix variants to be able to handle.
Pay attention next time.
Who in the hell would be dumb enough to not know it was a signature? And WHO would be dumb enough to think someone else didn't know this?
The Point being... It is Microsoft bashing, whether it is a signature or finger-painting on your little desk.
If you live in a world of Hyperboles, at least pick one and stick with it.
#1) This is an emulation layer, not a subsystem. #2) Microsoft has made and continues to make a real UNIX subsystem that runs on the NT kernel that is 'independant' of WIN32 and Windows. Just as POSIX that shipped in NT. However they have not produced an updated version of this Unix for NT in a couple of years. If Microsoft wanted to they could make a FULL Linux subsystem that runs on top of NT, with the underlying NT features that would allow the Linux subsystem to communicate with other subsystems like WIn32 if they wanted to. If Linux really does one day rule the world, all Microsoft has to do is flip the switch and you can have LinuxNT instead of WindowsNT. Rumors are the Linux Subsystem is already in development and could be dropped on the market at any time.
Ok, lets hear it... The specs were taken from the marketing materials provided by Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo by their representatives to our company last year.
I agree that it is a slick unit, and I have one. What I want is Nintendo to quit repacking the same core and innovate a new level of portable gaming. If they don't, then you will see PocketPCs and other portable handhelds taking the market from Nintendo. Nintendo holds on to users with their name brand and quality of games. Take the GameCube for example, it can only do about 8 million Polygons a second, and yet it sells well when there is the PS2 that can do up to 75millon a sec, and the XBOX that can do up to 300million a sec.
I am talking about the core technology of the NT kernel. If you want to debate the Windows kernel that sits on top of NT then you would have a more solid argument. Until OSX can do native subsystems and has an object based kernel, then the NT debate could begin. Everyone here sees WindowsXP(2k) as Win32, and totally miss the NT technology core underneath. Microsoft could create a TRUE Unix or Linux subsystem that could sit on the NT kernel, just as they did with WIn32. This is not something any other consumer level OS can even fathom doing at this point. As for usability, I still believe that XP is a better choice for consitency and ease of use. (My company actively participates in think tanks geared to User Interface design innovations) The OSX is a major advance for apple, but it still doesn't have many of the basic usability features that WindowsXP users take for granted. And with the NT core under WIndowsXP, the performance of preemptive multitasking is second to none, including any Unix variant.
I know all about the TurboGrafix (actually it was a twin 8bit system). And NO I am not saying it is superior to the GBA, but they are in the same league of games and technology. GBA is only one generation ahead of stuff that was offered in 1991, and it even took them this long to offer a backlighted screen. Nintendo could be doing SO much more. Look at the Pocket PC devices, they have more CPU and graphics power than the GBA and even get reasonable battery life. A portable 3D chip in a handheld is not out of reach. I am simply saying, it GBA SP is a nice machine, but I would like Nintendo to do more instead of forcing the same technology down consumers throats by offering colored cases, and now just adding a backlighted screen. They should be updating the architecture faster than once every 7 years.
You argue this, and yet you bash Microsoft in the same post. Windows is the number one OS not just because of Microsoft muscle, but because they offered stuff that no one else was offering at the time. A inexpensive GUI for the Intel PC. The reason they have held this lead is they continue to UPDATE the technology. WindowsXP is by far the most advanced consumer level operating system, and it comes straight out of the box. I like your argument, but if you believe this ideal, then apply it to all parts of your life and don't pick and choose just to be fashionable.
I fail to believe battery constraints are behind the architecture of the current GameBoy devices. The technology is already here, and the price point is also here.
Actually have access to almost every game made, for any gaming system through my work connections. "Partner with a Gaming Retailer"
I wasn't say the TurboGrafix was superior to the Gameboy, but the point was that it is somewhat in the same class. When other gaming devices have advanced so much, the GameBoy Advanced is more evolutionary. Nintendo could do so much more with this platform and do full 3D gaming in a pocket device. The technology is there, and the price point is there, Nintendo is just failing to offer it. I know how old the 16bit TurboGrafix is, and that limitations compared to the GameBoy, but that was not my point. Sorry for the confusion.
The problem with 'our' republic democracy is the stacking of electorial votes and congressional seats from southern states. That was set up during a time slavery was around and the landowners could could count their slaves as 2/3 a person's vote. Thereby increasing the the congressional seats and electorial votes allocated to these states that supported slavery. Hence, the reason Gore won the election, and Bush was put in office.