I don't know exactly what happens, but there are some differences ... between both ways of installing type1 fonts.
Well, exactly what happens is ... nothing as far as I am aware. In the words of Aodbe's Dov Isaacs:
"Simply installing and running ATM Deluxe 4.1 does absolutely NOTHING to modify or remove any fonts or modify any system font settings within Windows 2000, XP, or Server 2003.
"ATM Deluxe 4.1 does build its own internal "font set" but that is totally external to the operating system. It doesn't actually do anything to those fonts or communicate anything to the operating system with regards to those fonts."
I use ATM daily on Windows 2000 and have never seen anything like what you describe. Perhaps if you have some specifics, you could report them to Adobe, because I am sure they would be of interest to the ATM team. If you don't have any specifics (even just one example of a single font that shows differences depending on how it is installed), it would appear to be just another unfounded rumour.
Dominic,
I can send you an example (family of 5 type1 fonts) just give me an email address (if you want, of course). Then try to install them in both ways and see what ID3 will show in its font and font style menu. In fact I don't know whether this happens with Win2000 or not, but with WinXP ATM 4.1 recognizes only 4 of them (without Heavy) but installs Heavy in place of Bold. When installed via Windows\fonts everything is OK.
Regards
Boyan
Boyan
My e-mail can be found by clicking on my name.
Boyan
I checked the fonts you sent and can report that the problem with them is nothing to do with ATM - whoever "created" these fonts (there is no "designer" listed) did not fill out the style links properly in the fonts. (In effect, the font has two bolds listed.) When properly adjusted, these fonts work as expected in W2K whether installed via ATM or the Windows fonts panel. Before correction, installation caused problems whichever method of installation I chose. When installed via Windows\fonts, everything was most certainly not OK. So I cannot verify your position that installation of fonts via ATM and via Windows works differently.
PS. When you say that it works, are you saying that when you install via Windows, you then can view all five variants (rom, itals, bold, bold itals, heavy) in programs that support this method of font viewing (ie, that don't fake variants)? I certainly can't see them all in W2K, and I wouldn't expect to (in Windows, you can have only four members of a font family). You can access them all only once the font links have been corrected.
Dominic,
1.) "... When you say that it works, are you saying that when you install via Windows, you then can view all five variants (rom, itals, bold, bold itals, heavy).."
Yes, all of them. I mean in Illustrator (8, 10, CS) and InDesign (2, CS).
2.) "... did not fill out the style links properly in the fonts. (In effect, the font has two bolds listed.)..."
Can you explain this in detail? Every font program I use to check this doesn't say so. What program do you use? And how did you corrected them?
At last, obviously there are significant differences between Win2K and XP in font handling. That's why I started my first message with "Is it WinXP?".
Regards
Boyan
Where did you get this font from? I couldn't find it by doing a google search. (Please tell me that the BM in the title doesn't stand for Boyan Mladenov.) It looked suspiciously like a Gill Sans knockoff and, when I checked it in FontLab, it appears that whoever is responsible for it just copied the outlines from Adobe's Gill Sans (if so, as well as being a licence violation, the dropping of the copyright info would quite possibly be illegal). By the bye, they just obliqued the roman - maybe they didn't have the italic version to copy.
As indicated, I used FontLab to find that the font styles were not set properly. What font programs did you use?
And what happens when you look at the font variants in Word? Do you see them all then?
As far as I can see, all we can say at the moment is that possibly (certainly not definitely) Windows is less stringent in allowing improperly constructed fonts to be loaded than ATM. It's not a case of ATM complicating matters or of installing via Windows being the better way - the problem here lies with the font. If anything, installing via ATM is better, because it gives you a heads up that something's amiss with the font's style links.
Do you have any examples of non-knockoff fonts displaying this behaviour?
PS. Steve, did you get your fonts working?